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.
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
Try this scenario, A smoker talking on a hands-free phone dropping his cigarette between his legs because he was looking at his fancy navigation system or Tom-Tom. Too many gadgets is going to have a big backlash in safety I think in the not too distant future. When I drive I don't even turn on the radio, just drive, period. Accident free. The big fringe benefit is I can hear if a wheel bearing needs attention or anything else. Most people seem to have the radio on loud to drown out the traffic noise, unless, of course they are on the cell phone. Anybody see a benefit to making a lot of these frills non-functional if the car is moving? Bill Baka
"Bill Baka" <[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
Try this scenario, A smoker talking on a hands-free phone dropping his cigarette between his legs because he was looking at his fancy navigation system or Tom-Tom. Too many gadgets is going to have a big backlash in safety I think in the not too distant future. When I drive I don't even turn on the radio, just drive, period. Accident free. The big fringe benefit is I can hear if a wheel bearing needs attention or anything else. Most people seem to have the radio on loud to drown out the traffic noise, unless, of course they are on the cell phone. Anybody see a benefit to making a lot of these frills non-functional if the car is moving? Bill Baka
Shesh Bill.
I've had to do a lot of LONG drives over the years. For at least 20 of those years I've talked on 2 meters and/or 440 while driving. And I also listen to the radio, espeically on the long trips when I'm by myself, which is the usual condition.
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
To this, I would add: Most people think that they can do this perfectly well---it's just "the others" who cannot manage. And then, they will tell you "Don't legislate ME because the others are unable to do this as well as I can do it."
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?
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)
BTW, by dropping two of his /three/ cross-posted groups, you make subsequent posts and replies disjointed in those groups (especially if one goes to the trouble of restoring them in a reply). But then, consideration has never been your thing, of course...
BTW, by dropping two of his /three/ cross-posted groups, you make subsequent posts and replies disjointed in those groups (especially if one goes to the trouble of restoring them in a reply). But then, consideration has never been your thing, of course...
PS: That's exactly what "jtaylor" (James? Jack? John? Jello?) did: restored all his original groups in his reply to you, who had trimmed two of them. Result: ineffective communiction. HTH
"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Jay Taylor quotes:
> 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
Try this scenario, A smoker talking on a hands-free phone dropping his cigarette between his legs because he was looking at his fancy navigation system or Tom-Tom. Too many gadgets is going to have a big backlash in safety I think in the not too distant future. When I drive I don't even turn on the radio, just drive, period. Accident free. The big fringe benefit is I can hear if a wheel bearing needs attention or anything else. Most people seem to have the radio on loud to drown out the traffic noise, unless, of course they are on the cell phone. Anybody see a benefit to making a lot of these frills non-functional if the car is moving? Bill Baka
Shesh Bill.
I've had to do a lot of LONG drives over the years. For at least 20 of those years I've talked on 2 meters and/or 440 while driving. And I also listen to the radio, espeically on the long trips when I'm by myself, which is the usual condition.
Charles of Schaumburg
Yeah, I have to agree with you, but on the long drives you usually check your car and are on a long lonely freeway and not it traffic. I had the radio on every time I drove from the bay area to LA since the were almost no other cars, definitely no bikes, and it was boring to say the least. Bill Baka
"n5hsr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I've had to do a lot of LONG drives over the years. For at least 20 of those years I've talked on 2 meters and/or 440 while driving. And I also listen to the radio, espeically on the long trips when I'm by myself, which is the usual condition.
Not the same thing Charles. When you're on ham radio you have no expectations of what the person at the other end looks like, the expressions they're forming etc. A large part of human communications includes the facial expressions. This is so important that when you're on the telephone with someone you know you're visualizing their physical reactions to the conversation. This is why a radio doesn't disturb your concentration much but a telephone does.
And when someone is in the car with you and holding a conversation you'll notice that you are continually taking looks at their expression when you're driving. But those looks require a much smaller portion of your attention than the visualization that you do when speaking on a phone.
<[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.
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"n5hsr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I've had to do a lot of LONG drives over the years. For at least 20 of those years I've talked on 2 meters and/or 440 while driving. And I also listen to the radio, espeically on the long trips when I'm by myself, which is the usual condition.
Not the same thing Charles. When you're on ham radio you have no expectations of what the person at the other end looks like, the expressions they're forming etc. A large part of human communications includes the facial expressions. This is so important that when you're on the telephone with someone you know you're visualizing their physical reactions to the conversation. This is why a radio doesn't disturb your concentration much but a telephone does.
And when someone is in the car with you and holding a conversation you'll notice that you are continually taking looks at their expression when you're driving. But those looks require a much smaller portion of your attention than the visualization that you do when speaking on a phone.
Actually, I've become a bit hard of hearing so I DO NOT look at the person when I'm trying to hear them. I'm usually cocking my head toward them. And I do not try to visualize people's faces when I talk on the phone and haven't for a good 20 years. Actually, I don't remember a time that I did.. To me talking on the cell is just like talking on the radio, only in full duplex instead of half-duplex.
<[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.
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
Thanks for proving my point. EVERYBODY who drives and talks on a cell phone thinks that they and they alone are "capable of it." And, none of you are. Not one.
"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
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)
"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?
