Driver to drive?

[Martin Brown]

On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

--
Maggie

 

[John S]

On 8/17/2015 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Can one text through BT?

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 1:25 PM, John S wrote:

On 8/17/2015 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents,
then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a
cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not
up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Can one text through BT?

I think some phones allow voice texting, but I think it'd be more
trouble than it's worth.

--
Maggie

 

[Don Y]

On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and <whatever> they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! :> )

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 1:48 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and <whatever> they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! :> )

Do you think there's more a problem with younger people than older
people when it comes to using cell phones while driving?

--
Maggie

 

[Don Y]

On 8/17/2015 12:19 PM, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 1:48 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and <whatever> they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! :> )

Do you think there's more a problem with younger people than older
people when it comes to using cell phones while driving?

Ahhh, that's an interesting question!

[Please bear in mind that I don't "own" a cell phone]

On the one hand, I think younger people are more likely to
be engaged by/with a cell phone. The "instant gratification"
aspect (e.g., I don't answer the land line; let it take a message
and I'll check on it sometime later that day -- "it can wait").
I think most of them would consider a ringing cell phone in
their purse/pocket tantamount to an "itch" on the tip of
the nose while your hands are otherwise "unavailable" (to
scratch it). I.e., almost *impossible* to ignore!

And, IME, young people tend to be more engaged socially (even
if they never *do* anything "in person"; they are more integrated
with a larger number of individuals/groups). As one gets older,
the pool of people that we're (IME) willing to spend much
time "frittering away" shrinks. We're more likely to *see*
each other if we want to enjoy each other's company.

[We also tend to have more responsibilities and less "free time"
to fritter away on trivialities]

OTOH, I think "older people" (relative term, eh? :> ) tend to
not be as comfortable with the technology. Certainly less
willing to "waste" much time sorting out all the things that
*could* be done, potentially ("Which button do I press to make
a call? How do I hang up??") I know very few "older people"
who will sit down and try to impress me with the laundry list
of "features" that their phone supports.

So, the less familiarity might translate into greater *distraction*
(per event) among older folks; more effort required to get the
phone to do what you expect a TELEPHONE to be able to do!

OToOH, older people seem to be more inclined to pull over to
the side of the road to make a call. I will often see cars
parked nearby and wonder why they are sitting there. Only
to discover they are on the phone, talking. Keep in mind,
this is a residential area, there is no "back exit" from the
neighborhood and there's only another block or two of homes
*beyond* this one!

Translation: they thought it wise to pull over *now* instead
of "two blocks hence". By contrast, I suspect most "kids"
would just jabber away as they drove those last few blocks.

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 2:35 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/17/2015 12:19 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 1:48 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and <whatever> they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! :> )

Do you think there's more a problem with younger people than older
people when it comes to using cell phones while driving?

Ahhh, that's an interesting question!

[Please bear in mind that I don't "own" a cell phone]

On the one hand, I think younger people are more likely to
be engaged by/with a cell phone. The "instant gratification"
aspect (e.g., I don't answer the land line; let it take a message
and I'll check on it sometime later that day -- "it can wait").
I think most of them would consider a ringing cell phone in
their purse/pocket tantamount to an "itch" on the tip of
the nose while your hands are otherwise "unavailable" (to
scratch it). I.e., almost *impossible* to ignore!

And, IME, young people tend to be more engaged socially (even
if they never *do* anything "in person"; they are more integrated
with a larger number of individuals/groups). As one gets older,
the pool of people that we're (IME) willing to spend much
time "frittering away" shrinks. We're more likely to *see*
each other if we want to enjoy each other's company.

[We also tend to have more responsibilities and less "free time"
to fritter away on trivialities]

OTOH, I think "older people" (relative term, eh? :> ) tend to
not be as comfortable with the technology. Certainly less
willing to "waste" much time sorting out all the things that
*could* be done, potentially ("Which button do I press to make
a call? How do I hang up??") I know very few "older people"
who will sit down and try to impress me with the laundry list
of "features" that their phone supports.

So, the less familiarity might translate into greater *distraction*
(per event) among older folks; more effort required to get the
phone to do what you expect a TELEPHONE to be able to do!

OToOH, older people seem to be more inclined to pull over to
the side of the road to make a call. I will often see cars
parked nearby and wonder why they are sitting there. Only
to discover they are on the phone, talking. Keep in mind,
this is a residential area, there is no "back exit" from the
neighborhood and there's only another block or two of homes
*beyond* this one!

Translation: they thought it wise to pull over *now* instead
of "two blocks hence". By contrast, I suspect most "kids"
would just jabber away as they drove those last few blocks.

Interesting observations, there.

All my kids are cell phone + text savvy and mostly communicate via text,
so if I want to stay in touch, I text them.

--
Maggie

 

[ceg]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:44:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I think some phones allow voice texting, but I think it'd be more
trouble than it's worth.

Sure, you can easily text with voice to speech through bluetooth.
It works both ways (voice readout, and voice recognition).

It's not even fancy nowadays.
All smartphones do it, as far as I know.

Certainly it works through my Motorola Roadster speakerphone and
my android cellphone.

 

[Don Y]

On 8/17/2015 2:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

Interesting observations, there.

All my kids are cell phone + text savvy and mostly communicate via text,
so if I want to stay in touch, I text them.

Do you do it the *instant* your phone chirps at you? While driving?
Or, do you assume it can wait a minute/hour and reply later -- when
it is more convenient/safe? If it's a text AND the sort of thing
that you can *immediately* formulate an answer (i.e., doesn't require
conferring with your SO or "thinking about it"), then is it really
*that* urgent?

We're frequently out front chatting with neighbors. Their kids are
now out of the house (permanently?). While talking, invariably
"his" (or "hers") phone will chirp. They'll ignore it as they are
engaged in a conversation. After *two* rings, it will stop. Then
hers (or his) will chirp. Again, two rings later, that stops.
THEN, the land line in the house starts to ring.

We all *know* its one of the kids -- impatient, needing instant
gratification. Their question ("what are you guys having for supper?"
or something equally earth-shattering) just DEMANDS an immediate
reply. Or, so *they* would think!

[I wonder what they would do if mom & dad were in the sack and
didn't reply for an hour or so?? "Where WERE you guys?? I've been
calling and calling..." "We were working on another CHILD..."]

 

[krw]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 7:17 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/17/2015 2:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

Interesting observations, there.

All my kids are cell phone + text savvy and mostly communicate via text,
so if I want to stay in touch, I text them.

Do you do it the *instant* your phone chirps at you? While driving?
Or, do you assume it can wait a minute/hour and reply later -- when
it is more convenient/safe? If it's a text AND the sort of thing
that you can *immediately* formulate an answer (i.e., doesn't require
conferring with your SO or "thinking about it"), then is it really
*that* urgent?

I wait until I'm not driving any more to respond IF I remember that I
actually got a text msg while driving. Sometimes, I don't hear the DING
when I get the msg, too.

We're frequently out front chatting with neighbors. Their kids are
now out of the house (permanently?). While talking, invariably
"his" (or "hers") phone will chirp. They'll ignore it as they are
engaged in a conversation. After *two* rings, it will stop. Then
hers (or his) will chirp. Again, two rings later, that stops.
THEN, the land line in the house starts to ring.

We all *know* its one of the kids -- impatient, needing instant
gratification. Their question ("what are you guys having for supper?"
or something equally earth-shattering) just DEMANDS an immediate
reply. Or, so *they* would think!

[I wonder what they would do if mom & dad were in the sack and
didn't reply for an hour or so?? "Where WERE you guys?? I've been
calling and calling..." "We were working on another CHILD..."]

OMG! Mom and dad were what? ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!

--
Maggie

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 7:17 PM, krw wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

You can take it out.

--
Maggie

 

[krw]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:08:04 -0500, Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 7:17 PM, krw wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.


You can take it out.

Now I have yet another thing to fumble on the rare occasion that the
phone rings. No thanks.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/08/2015 01:17, krw wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:


Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

They are too stupid or too mean to buy the necessary kit or more likely
learn to use it since many car radios come with bluetooth these days.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

There are two sorts of bluetooth device the earpiece ones you see in
supermarkets and on the move as pedestrians and the ones built into the
car where typically the car also provides an aerial boost as well.

When bluetoothed the phone mutes the in car stereo and the call is
routed through the entertainment system - there is nothing in your ear
at all. There are a couple of minor problems. A slight echo on the line
as far as the caller is concerned and some extra roadnoise.

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free
significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the
road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before
answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to
text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although
annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[David Brown]

On 18/08/15 08:54, Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/08/2015 01:17, krw wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:


Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

They are too stupid or too mean to buy the necessary kit or more likely
learn to use it since many car radios come with bluetooth these days.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

There are two sorts of bluetooth device the earpiece ones you see in
supermarkets and on the move as pedestrians and the ones built into the
car where typically the car also provides an aerial boost as well.

When bluetoothed the phone mutes the in car stereo and the call is
routed through the entertainment system - there is nothing in your ear
at all. There are a couple of minor problems. A slight echo on the line
as far as the caller is concerned and some extra roadnoise.

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free
significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the
road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before
answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to
text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although
annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.

Simulations also show that the dangers involved depend on how often you
talk on phones/radios while driving. People who do so regularly, such
as police, taxi drivers, etc., are able to split their attention better,
and "disconnect" from the phone if an emergency situation occurs.
People who rarely talk on phones, however, can have their reaction times
and attention reduced to the level of someone so drunk they have
difficulty getting their key in the ignition - and that's on a
hands-free phone. Using hands-free or hand-held telephones makes almost
no difference to the reaction times - the key issue is that your
attention is elsewhere.

Of course there are plenty of other causes of distraction that can be
equally bad - having an argument with people in the car, turning round
to threaten unruly kids with having to walk home, driving with a
migraine, having food or drink in the car, etc., are all high-risk
activities. Even just having hot food or drink in the car is a
significant risk - the smell of a takeaway is distracting.

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:54:56 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

When bluetoothed the phone mutes the in car stereo and the call is
routed through the entertainment system - there is nothing in your ear
at all. There are a couple of minor problems. A slight echo on the line
as far as the caller is concerned and some extra roadnoise.

My Motorola Roadster speakerphone clips onto the visor and works
just fine.

It's better than an earpiece, for me, because it will always be
in the car, and it talks out my text messages, and takes dictation.

It *can* route through an unused FM channel of your choosing, but,
I find that more work than it's worth to go through the radio
amplifier. I just use the speakerphone portion.

When I receive a phone call, it tells me whom it's from and asks
me "answer or ignore", and it always gets it right when I say
either "answer" or "ignore".

When I want to call someone, I have to be a bit careful with
strange names, such as "call Brumhilda", but, I "solved" that
problem by assigning simpler names to the problematic ones, such
as listing "Brumhilda" as "mom" (or some such simplification).

So, when I say "call mom", it asks "Do you want to call Mom?",
where the number it calls is Brumhilda.

Overall, the Motorola Roadster is a fine device, but, I'm sure
the Jabba and Plantronics, and other brands are just as well.

One caution though is that I don't use the Motorola Android
software, because it never seems to work. I just use the native
capability of the Roadster and the Android phone on Bluetooth.

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:54:56 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free
significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the
road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before
answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to
text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although
annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.

You jumped in your last sentence from "accidents" to "fatalities",
which are really far more complicated than accidents.

We must keep to the point that we *think* that hand held cellphone
use seems, to us, to be something that must contribute to accidents.

I can't deny I think that also.

The only problem is that none of us can *find* those accidents!
So, something is wrong somewhere.

Either our assumptions are wrong, or the data is wrong, because the
data shown to date does not match the assumptions we all have.

If you have better data on accident rates, please show it.

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:21 +0200, David Brown wrote:

Simulations also show that the dangers involved depend on how often you
talk on phones/radios while driving. People who do so regularly, such
as police, taxi drivers, etc., are able to split their attention better,
and "disconnect" from the phone if an emergency situation occurs.
People who rarely talk on phones, however, can have their reaction times
and attention reduced to the level of someone so drunk they have
difficulty getting their key in the ignition - and that's on a
hands-free phone. Using hands-free or hand-held telephones makes almost
no difference to the reaction times - the key issue is that your
attention is elsewhere.

Of course there are plenty of other causes of distraction that can be
equally bad - having an argument with people in the car, turning round
to threaten unruly kids with having to walk home, driving with a
migraine, having food or drink in the car, etc., are all high-risk
activities. Even just having hot food or drink in the car is a
significant risk - the smell of a takeaway is distracting.

Do you have any data to support those arguments?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/08/2015 19:59, ceg wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:54:56 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free
significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the
road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before
answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to
text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although
annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.

You jumped in your last sentence from "accidents" to "fatalities",
which are really far more complicated than accidents.

We must keep to the point that we *think* that hand held cellphone
use seems, to us, to be something that must contribute to accidents.

I can't deny I think that also.

The only problem is that none of us can *find* those accidents!
So, something is wrong somewhere.

They are widely reported in the US newspapers.

It didn't take long on Google to find headlines along the lines of 25%
of US car crashes occur when people are on their cell phone. eg.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/28/cellphone-use-1-in-4-car-crashes/7018505/

Claiming that mobile phones caused them is a bit too strong but they
were almost certainly a factor. The simulator results back this up. A
second distraction at 50mph means you have travelled another 22m.

Either our assumptions are wrong, or the data is wrong, because the
data shown to date does not match the assumptions we all have.

If you have better data on accident rates, please show it.

There are studies that claim no effect or about 4x more likely to have
a crash but I can't find the raw data online to check it. eg.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23631406

--
Regards,
Martin Brown