Please note the parallels...

dvt 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?

The Summer 2006 edition of "Human Factors" the journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society (Vol. 48 #2) arrived on my desk not long
ago. It includes a paper titled "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver
and the Drunk Driver" describing tests done in a driving simulator. It
runs 11 pages so I won't describe the whole thing but it states: "When
driving conditions and time on task are accounted for, the impairments
associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as
those associated with driving while drunk." However, drunks and cell
phone users are not the same. Cell phone user reactions are delayed and
they do not detect hazards while drunks are more aggressive, follow
closer and brake harder. They found no difference between handheld and
hands-free phone users.

There was also something about age but I can't find it right now. As I
recall, young people are more easily distracted and are not as good at
estimating closing speed and stopping distance. I guess that if you want
to see a really bad driver find a drunk teenager talking on the phone.

Dan said:

The Summer 2006 edition of "Human Factors" the journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society (Vol. 48 #2) arrived on my desk not long
ago. It includes a paper titled "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver
and the Drunk Driver" describing tests done in a driving simulator.

Yep, that's the one that was pointed out by another Mark. Thanks.

--
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)

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:59:38 +0100 someone who may be Pyromancer
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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

That was the plan, in order to give multi-modal transport using
containers and swap-bodies a fighting chance (the weight of the
container or swap-body reduces the payload compared to carrying the
items by lorry (or indeed railway wagon)).

However, not any more. David Begg and his so-called Commission for
Integrated Transport decided that 44 tonne lorries should be
permitted everywhere. They were stupid enough not to see through the
lies of the lorry lobby. The advice of the so-called Commission for
Integrated Transport has been suspect ever since.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Quoted message said:

It's the remote conversation itself that is
the real distraction, not the act of holding the cell phone

The conversation need not be remote. I had a buddy who would use this
tactic to pass people on technical trails in MTB races. When faced with
a rider blocking the trail ahead of him, he would simply make a comment
or ask the person a question. When they attempted to reply they would
usually crash... and then he could pass them.

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

Quoted message said:

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".

Like most laws this one is a preposterous idea. How do you prove that
someone isn't driving with due care? Why ONLY after they've had an accident
in which case the law could conceivably be used to assign blame.

There are too many stupid laws on the books the way it is.

Dan said:

I guess that if you want
to see a really bad driver find a drunk teenager talking on the phone.

That's why I try to be off the roads when the high schools turn them
loose...

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 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."

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/164/11/1581.pdf

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbusters_killer_brace_posit.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pdf/cellphones.pdf#search=%22driving%20cellphone%20drunk%20comparison%20study%20-strayer%22

That took about a minute to google, and the links above were contained
in the first 10 out of 266,000 hits, in which I included the term
"-strayer" to eliminate the article from hfes.org above. And I've
read directly and indirectly about "numerous studies", whether you can
find them on the 'net or not (has anyone else noticed that it's
starting to be thought of as objective reality that if something isn't
on the net, it doesn't exist?). ;-)

Quoted message said:

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.

It appears that's how the vast majority of drivers use their cell
phones (either that or there's almost NO ONE who drives without
talking on the bloody phone since it seems like half the drivers are
yakking away while they "drive".... grrrrr).

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

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

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".

Like most laws this one is a preposterous idea. How do you prove that
someone isn't driving with due care? Why ONLY after they've had an accident
in which case the law could conceivably be used to assign blame.

There are too many stupid laws on the books the way it is.

No, the stupid law would be the one that makes it illegal to use
your cell-phone while driving with due care and attention, if you
are capable of it.

--Blair

Mark Hickey said:

dvt said:

So Mark Hickey, unless you have more info, you shouldn't refer to
"numerous studies."

Quoted message said:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/164/11/1581.pdf

No mention of drunk, drink, drinking, or DUI in that study.

Quoted message said:

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbusters_killer_brace_posit.html

I like Mythbusters and all, but I don't consider that a scientific study.

Quoted message said:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pdf/cellphones.pdf#search=%22driving%20cellphone%20drunk%20comparison%20study%20-strayer%22

From that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

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:

That took about a minute to google, and the links above were contained
in the first 10 out of 266,000 hits...

One of your links gives me the search terms you used. Thanks. I'll use
them when I have a few more minutes.

Quoted message said:

(has anyone else noticed that it's
starting to be thought of as objective reality that if something isn't
on the net, it doesn't exist?). ;-)

Yep. But you may have noticed the caveat "unless you have more info." I
know it's impossible to prove, but I was thinking about offline
resources when I wrote that.

Quoted message said:

It appears that's how the vast majority of drivers use their cell
phones (either that or there's almost NO ONE who drives without
talking on the bloody phone since it seems like half the drivers are
yakking away while they "drive".... grrrrr).

I have had difficulty convincing coworkers and family members that I was
sane after I stopped the car to answer a phone call. Maybe I can win
that argument with science.

--
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 31 Aug 2006 00:08:23 -0700, "Ron Ruff" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Saying "#$%^ off" doesn't really require you to engage your language
faculties.

Quoted message said:

Much like the gratuitous and unnecessary substitution of insult for
logic found sometime (I am *shocked*) in posts on r.b.t.

Hey, who said that posting to RBT required you to engage any faculties?

--
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)

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

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".

Like most laws this one is a preposterous idea. How do you prove that
someone isn't driving with due care? Why ONLY after they've had an
accident
in which case the law could conceivably be used to assign blame.

There are too many stupid laws on the books the way it is.

No, the stupid law would be the one that makes it illegal to use
your cell-phone while driving with due care and attention, if you
are capable of it.

--Blair

I'd propose a dual level of penalty

For those who own up - 'it's a fair cop' - fixed penalty notice
For those who _insist_ that it's safe for _them_ - loss of licence

Blair P. Houghton said:

No, the stupid law would be the one that makes it illegal to use
your cell-phone while driving with due care and attention, if you
are capable of it.

How do you prove that you are capable? And how do you prove that you
were "driving with due care and attention?" Conversely, how do you prove
incapability?

--
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)

In article <[email hidden]>,

dvt said:

From that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

I suspect the risk assessment is accurate for all
practical purposes. What is all too common, unnecessary,
provocative, and downright malicious is a driver talking
into a cellular telephone while coasting along in the fast
lane of limited access highway as he reduces his speed
slower, and slower, and slower... Exactly my candidate for
walking a gantlet.

"One of the worst crimes in a ship is theft: in a ship of
the line with 800 or so men on board, the presence of a
thief on board could make everyone's life a misery,
poisoning the air with suspicion, particularly because
most men could not lock up their valued possessions. For
minor offences a thief was made to run the gantlet
(probably from the Dutch gantlope: _gant_, all; _loopen_,
run). For this men were given rope yarns which they
plaited into knittles, with a half hitch in the end. They
then stood in two rows, facing each other and leaving a
corridor between them. The thief then had to strip off
his shirt and was made to pass along the corridor, the
master-at-arms walking slowly backwards in front of him
and holding a cutlass at his chest and a ship's corporal
following with another cutlass. The men then thrashed him
with the knittles as he passed - as he slowly walked, not
ran, the gantlet."

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

dvt said:

Fro that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

I suspect the risk assessment is accurate for all
practical purposes.

And yet we have had for twenty years legislation which purports to
protect cyclists from death by head injury, a risk that, if one were
to be completely unreasonable and claim that ALL cyclist deaths were
due to head injury (an exageration that is clearly extreme), is less
than one quarter that of being killed by a drunk driver.

This of course, ignores the fact that the remedy required by
legislation does not actually work.

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

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".

Like most laws this one is a preposterous idea. How do you prove that
someone isn't driving with due care? Why ONLY after they've had an
accident
in which case the law could conceivably be used to assign blame.

There are too many stupid laws on the books the way it is.

No, the stupid law would be the one that makes it illegal to use
your cell-phone while driving with due care and attention, if you
are capable of it.

Then you would also have to agree that it shouldn't be illegal for people to
drive under the influence of alcohol as long as they're using due care and
attention?

Michael Press said:

The thief then had to strip off
his shirt and was made to pass along the corridor, the
master-at-arms walking slowly backwards in front of him
and holding a cutlass at his chest and a ship's corporal
following with another cutlass. The men then thrashed him
with the knittles as he passed - as he slowly walked, not
ran, the gantlet."

Aaaarrrrr, and he got off easy... Aaaarrrrrr....

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

dvt said:

Mark Hickey said:

dvt said:

So Mark Hickey, unless you have more info, you shouldn't refer to
"numerous studies."

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pdf/cellphones.pdf#search=%22driving%20cellphone%20drunk%20comparison%20study%20-strayer%22

From that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

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.

Bzzzt. Please come back when you've been to Statistics 101. You can't
corrrelate the two sets of data unless you know the relative incidence
of drink driving and mobile use while driving.

TL

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:25:20 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

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

Like most laws this one is a preposterous idea. How do you prove that
someone isn't driving with due care? Why ONLY after they've had an
accident
in which case the law could conceivably be used to assign blame.

There are too many stupid laws on the books the way it is.

No, the stupid law would be the one that makes it illegal to use
your cell-phone while driving with due care and attention, if you
are capable of it.

Then you would also have to agree that it shouldn't be illegal for people to
drive under the influence of alcohol as long as they're using due care and
attention?

In Newfoundland, until recently, it was legal for the driver to be
drinking - actually have a beer in his/her hand - as long as they were
not drunk.

The Luggage said:

dvt said:

Mark Hickey said:

dvt <[email hidden]> wrote:
> So Mark Hickey, unless you have more info, you shouldn't refer to
> "numerous studies."

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pdf/cellphones.pdf#search=%22driving%20cellphone%20drunk%20comparison%20study%20-strayer%22

From that pdf: "The involuntary risk that someone (e.g. pedestrians or
other motorists) will be killed by a driver using a cellular phone is
about 1 chance in a million per year. This probability is smaller than
the risk of being killed by a drunk driver." This one actually refutes
your earlier claim:

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.

Bzzzt. Please come back when you've been to Statistics 101. You can't
corrrelate the two sets of data unless you know the relative incidence
of drink driving and mobile use while driving.

Whom are you buzzing?

--
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)

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:25:20 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > 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".
>
> Like most laws this one is a preposterous idea. How do you prove that
> someone isn't driving with due care? Why ONLY after they've had an
> accident
> in which case the law could conceivably be used to assign blame.
>
> There are too many stupid laws on the books the way it is.

No, the stupid law would be the one that makes it illegal to use
your cell-phone while driving with due care and attention, if you
are capable of it.

Then you would also have to agree that it shouldn't be illegal for people
to
drive under the influence of alcohol as long as they're using due care and
attention?

In Newfoundland, until recently, it was legal for the driver to be
drinking - actually have a beer in his/her hand - as long as they were
not drunk.

Until relatively recently it was the same in Texas. But who ever wanted to
drive in Texas?

:::A day without an illegal Mexican is like a day in China.:::