Please note the parallels...

Quoted message said:

Taken from the digest also found on usenet in comp.risks...

----- quote begins -----
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:27:15 -0700
From: Lauren Weinstein <[email hidden]>
Subject: Silliness in Action: California Poised for Cell Phone Ban

As you know, I frequently speak out against what I view as silly laws
that fly in the face of logic, science, or just plainly observable
facts.

In yet another proof that reality and politics often don't mix,
lawmakers here in California are poised (after many years of refusing
to go along with the bill's main sponsor) to approve a ban on handheld
cell phones whendriving. This may happen as soon as next week. You
can count on Arnold, desperate for popular actions he can take so
close to election day, to sign the bill.

All of us have been annoyed by the gabbing cell phone user who seems
to be driving oblivious to everything around them. So without a doubt
this law will have wide appeal. And if experience in other states
holds, the law will have little or no long-term positive safety
effects, and handheld cell phone use will quickly rise back to pre-law
levels after a brief initial reduction.

The reasons are obvious. Study after study shows that distracted
driving of *any kind* is a key factor in accidents. While someone
holding a cell phone clamped to their ear is easy to spot, we're less
aware of the radio manipulators, people screaming at their children in
the back seat, makeup applicators, food eaters, and any of a myriad
number of other distracted drivers. In fact, studies have shown that
the most common distractions leading to accidents when driving are
other people inside the vehicle or things seen outside the vehicle.

Even worse, research shows quite clearly that talking on hands-free
cell phones (still permitted under the bill) is equally distracting as
using a handheld device. It's the remote conversation itself that is
the real distraction, not the act of holding the cell phone - -- plus
there's all the situations where people fumble around to answer or
dial a call even on a hands-free cell phone.

When proponents of this legislation are presented with these
inconvenient facts, they tend to reply with, "Oh well, at least we're
doing something..."

"Something" isn't good enough when it's based on bad science.

----- quote ends -----

So what do YOU endorse -- no restrictions at all, or banning ALL
distractions (including radios, kids, food, drinks...)?

What's wrong with at least trying to put an end to the MOST COMMON cause of
distracted driving and seeing what if anything happens?

Come to think of it, the ARE clear parallels between this and that to which
you merely allude. Your position is illogical and contradictory in both.
<eg>

Sorno

Jay Taylor quotes:

Quoted message said:

Even worse, research shows quite clearly that talking on hands-free
cell phones (still permitted under the bill) is equally distracting
as using a handheld device. It's the remote conversation itself
that is the real distraction, not the act of holding the cell phone
-- plus there's all the situations where people fumble around to
answer or dial a call even on a hands-free cell phone.

Therein lies the thumb twiddling legislation. Most people are not
aware of this and believe there is merit to the hands-free telephoning.
Most divers note that they cannot carry a thoughtful conversation
while driving in demanding traffic but don't realize that this carries
over into telephonic conversations.

Jobst Brandt

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Something" isn't good enough when it's based on bad science.

What "bad science"? Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
being at the legally impaired drinking limit. Heck, the Mythbusters
took this one on and validated it fercryinoutloud.

What part of making an extrordinarily common distraction illegal is it
that you disagree with? For every driver I see reading, eating,
applying makeup or screaming at the kids, I see 20 driving with a
vacant smile on their face yakking on the phone. Then again, calling
what many of these morons are doing "driving" is giving the benefit of
the doubt.

Quoted message said:

So what do YOU endorse -- no restrictions at all, or banning ALL
distractions (including radios, kids, food, drinks...)?

Poor guy probably gets "bored" driving - doesn't want to actually
concentrate on controlling a two ton semi-guided missile I guess.

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with at least trying to put an end to the MOST COMMON cause of
distracted driving and seeing what if anything happens?

It might work? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Come to think of it, the ARE clear parallels between this and that to which
you merely allude. Your position is illogical and contradictory in both.
<eg>

Just what I was thinking.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Mark Hickey wrote: (clip) Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and being at
the legally impaired drinking limit.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, how's this for a parallel? Since cell phone behind the wheel is no
worse than driving drunk, how about legalizing the latter? This would have
to make sense to the people who say that cell phones are no worse than a lot
of other things.

Leo Lichtman said:

"Mark Hickey wrote: (clip) Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and being at
the legally impaired drinking limit.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, how's this for a parallel? Since cell phone behind the wheel is no
worse than driving drunk, how about legalizing the latter? This would have
to make sense to the people who say that cell phones are no worse than a lot
of other things.

Blah, blah, blah...

Let's stick to the important stuff: jtaylor wants to know if you wear a
helmet whilst showering with a cell phone. So does the Wonderous Raven
and his puppet Burt.

in message <[email hidden]>, Bill Sornson

(') said:

So what do YOU endorse -- no restrictions at all, or banning ALL
distractions (including radios, kids, food, drinks...)?

One stroke and you're out drivers licences. There is no 'right' to drive
(see rights theory threads on rbr, passim). A person who through
negligence is involved in any collision should have their licence
revoked permanently (full disclosure: that would be my licence gone,
then); and driving without a licence should carry an automatic jail
term.

People would drive a lot more carefully.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Mark Hickey
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Something" isn't good enough when it's based on bad science.

Quoted message said:

What "bad science"? Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
being at the legally impaired drinking limit. Heck, the Mythbusters
took this one on and validated it fercryinoutloud.

A similar law was passed here in the UK a few years back, with no effect
at all, because it's never enforced. Last week outside my dentist's
surgery I watched in amazement as a man "drove" a 38 ton articulated
truck (what the US calls a semi-trailer), the largest and heaviest
permitted in the UK[1], down a narrow and curving town-centre street
holding a mobile phone clamped to his head with one hand. Unfortunately
I didn't have a camera ready, but I suspect even with photographic
evidence the police wouldn't have done anything, because no resource has
been provided to do so.

[1] Ok, can go up to 44 if going to/from a railhead. But 38 is the
usual limit.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

In uk.rec.cycling Pyromancer twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

A similar law was passed here in the UK a few years back, with no effect
at all, because it's never enforced.

I think it's in the same category as the #1000 fine they say they can hand
out if the address on your driving license or V5[1]. I doubt a lot of
them happen, but I'd imagine if you do something to draw the attention of
the authorities and they then discover they can get you for those too
they will!

[1] Vehicle registration document for non-UK-ians.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Mark Hickey said:

Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

I hadn't heard that before. It's pretty amazing!

Before I go around repeating it as fact, I'd like to read a little more.
Do you know where you found this?

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)

Response to dvt:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

I hadn't heard that before. It's pretty amazing!

Before I go around repeating it as fact, I'd like to read a little more.
Do you know where you found this?

[I posted this on another x-posted thread a little while back.]

Google and ye shall find, e.g.:

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/1112cellphones.html

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1

"The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:
Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove
slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24
percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched
between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal
speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study
participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones.

The pdf for the latter is at

http://www.hfes.org/Web/PubPages/celldrunk.pdf

--
Mark, UK
"There was never a century nor a country that was short of experts who
knew the Deity's mind and were willing to reveal it."

Quoted message said:

Jay Taylor quotes:

Quoted message said:

Even worse, research shows quite clearly that talking on hands-free
cell phones (still permitted under the bill) is equally distracting
as using a handheld device. It's the remote conversation itself
that is the real distraction, not the act of holding the cell phone
-- plus there's all the situations where people fumble around to
answer or dial a call even on a hands-free cell phone.

Therein lies the thumb twiddling legislation. Most people are not
aware of this and believe there is merit to the hands-free telephoning.
Most divers note that they cannot carry a thoughtful conversation
while driving in demanding traffic but don't realize that this carries
over into telephonic conversations.

Jobst Brandt

And in many jurisdictions there already exist provisions for dealing
with such situations; the gerneral terms can be summarised as "driving
without due care and attention".

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jay Taylor quotes:

Quoted message said:

Even worse, research shows quite clearly that talking on hands-free
cell phones (still permitted under the bill) is equally distracting
as using a handheld device. It's the remote conversation itself
that is the real distraction, not the act of holding the cell phone
-- plus there's all the situations where people fumble around to
answer or dial a call even on a hands-free cell phone.

Therein lies the thumb twiddling legislation. Most people are not
aware of this and believe there is merit to the hands-free telephoning.
Most divers note that they cannot carry a thoughtful conversation
while driving in demanding traffic but don't realize that this carries
over into telephonic conversations.

Jobst Brandt

And in many jurisdictions there already exist provisions for dealing
with such situations; the gerneral terms can be summarised as "driving
without due care and attention".

Entirely reasonable then to codify a particular instance of this to avoid
wasting court time arguing over what constitutes due care and attention?

Mark McNeill said:

Response to dvt:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hadn't heard that before. It's pretty amazing!

Before I go around repeating it as fact, I'd like to read a little more.
Do you know where you found this?

Quoted message said:

[I posted this on another x-posted thread a little while back.]

Google and ye shall find, e.g.:

[snip]

Thanks! I'm off to do some reading...

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)

RonSonic said:

Shut up and drive. It's a new song, I just wrote it. Wanna hear how it
goes? Happy to oblige

Better yet (since these are bicycle newsgroups): Shut up, get out, and
RIIIIDE.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)

Quoted message said:

On 30 Aug 2006 00:23:29 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

In case you're confused (never saw JB's post), it only appeared in RBMisc.
(He trimmed 2 of 3 cross-posted groups; "j" restored 'em.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jay Taylor quotes:

Who's /Jay/ Taylor?

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On 30 Aug 2006 00:23:29 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

In case you're confused (never saw JB's post), it only appeared in RBMisc.
(He trimmed 2 of 3 cross-posted groups; "j" restored 'em.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jay Taylor quotes:

Who's /Jay/ Taylor?

An [censored] crossposter, apparently.

dvt said:

Mark McNeill said:

Response to dvt:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
> of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
> being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hadn't heard that before. It's pretty amazing!

Before I go around repeating it as fact, I'd like to read a little more.
Do you know where you found this?

Quoted message said:

[I posted this on another x-posted thread a little while back.]

Google and ye shall find, e.g.:

[snip]

Thanks! I'm off to do some reading...

Dear Dave,

You might browse around for articles on police and pilot training.

The police test that washes out the most trainees consists of just
driving briskly while following radio directions and giving an
accurate radio report of where they're heading--south on such and so
street while passing this or that intersection.

On airliners, the co-pilot is not there as a backup for the pilot.
He's there to take care of talking to the control tower while the
pilot takes care of landing the plane.

There's a reason for the old line about not being smart enough to walk
and chew gum at the same time. Just marching and playing music is much
harder than it looks (ask any marching band director).

For a quick illustration, try typing a post to RBT while carrying on
any kind of conversation.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Mark McNeill said:

Response to dvt:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hadn't heard that before. It's pretty amazing!

Before I go around repeating it as fact, I'd like to read a little more.
Do you know where you found this?

Quoted message said:

[I posted this on another x-posted thread a little while back.]

Google and ye shall find, e.g.:

[snip other refs]

Quoted message said:

http://www.hfes.org/Web/PubPages/celldrunk.pdf

Interesting stuff. I like it, and plan to post some part of it where my
coworkers can see it.

Based on the links you supplied, this seems to be the study we're
discussing. I did a quick Google and found a ton of news articles that
referenced this study, but no additional studies.

So Mark Hickey, unless you have more info, you shouldn't refer to
"numerous studies." On the other hand, you mention "a cellphone stuck to
your face." The journal article referenced above mentions that
hands-free vs. hands-on cell phones make little difference (and gives a
reference for that, which I haven't read). So you don't need to have it
"stuck to your face" in order to be impaired.

Great stuff. Thanks for the education, guys.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Response to dvt:
> Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Numerous studies have shown about the same amount
>> of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to your face and
>> being at the legally impaired drinking limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Do you know where you found this?

Quoted message said:

You might browse around for articles on police and pilot training.

[snip]

Thanks, but I was looking for info on the specific claim that there is
"the same amount of effect between driving with a cellphone stuck to
your face and being at the legally impaired drinking limit."

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)