Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

The Telecom Digest Volume 29 : Issue 90 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Tom Horne) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Thad Floryan) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Wesrock) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Sam Spade) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Thad Floryan) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Wesrock) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Barry Margolin) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Steven) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Barry Margolin) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (Steven) Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones (John Levine) Important Changes to [Mass.] 511, Coming May 2010 (Monty Solomon) Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds (Steven) Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds (David Clayton) Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds (Steven) Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds (Barry Margolin) Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds (David Clayton) ====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest. Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:48:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <e8657d36-20df-46fa-8810-9cb7f0f42ba5@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> On Mar 29, 3:50 am, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote: > Cars use lights, bells and buzzers to remind drivers to fasten > their seat belts as they start their engines. > > It would seem natural, then, to offer motorists friendly, yet > stern warnings about another bad habit: holding a cell phone > while driving, whether for texting or talking. > > Several software and gadget companies -- many of them at the > country's biggest trade show for the wireless industry last > week in Las Vegas -- have sprung up to address that challenge. > But creating an effective, widespread solution looks a lot > harder than putting in reminders for seat belts. > > Furthermore, we're only just beginning to figure out what > constitutes a dangerous distraction, and how best to curb it. > Are handsfree conversations dangerous? What about dictating > text messages to your phone? Does everyone need help staying > away from the phone while driving, or just teens and employees? > > Many states ban drivers from using cell phones without > handsfree devices, but a recent insurance industry study found > that such laws haven't reduced crashes. It's not clear why, > but one reason might be that drivers flout the laws. > > At least a dozen startups have produced phone applications > designed to curb the temptation to use the phone while driving. > > {article continues at the following URL} > > http://skunkpost.com/news.sp?newsId=1986 Cell phone users who insist that they are not a danger when they phone and drive are either self delusional or they are narcissists. Sales people got along very well for over a thousand years without the damned things: saying "They might loose the sale to the competition" is the same "Me First" bullshit that is causing dozens of deaths a day on the highways as the direct result of impaired or distracted driving. If we were loosing dozens of people a day in structure fires the whole country would be shouting for immediate change. It's not just these "Me First" clowns who are dying out there: it is also the people in the cars they are running into. You only have to cover a dead baby once to believe that there has to be something that can be done. Driving a motor vehicle is not a right: that is black letter law. The privilege of operating a car on the public roads can legally be withheld from anyone whose operation of a vehicle poses a hazard to others. The solution is at hand. Current law requires that the cellular carriers be able to locate a cell phone's location to a certain standard of accuracy by an as-yet-not-reached deadline. Once you can do that you can determine how fast the cell phone is moving and where. It's then just a programming problem to shut down calls in any case were the phone is in motion on a roadway, rather than on a train, at greater than a walking speed and to send calls to such phones to voice mail automatically. I know that there may be another person in the vehicle who is using the cell phone. I also know that is a very small minority of users. Since those of us in Fire & Rescue are now cutting people out of cars with their cell phones still calling out to them from wherever the crash forces deposited it, I believe that last inconvenience is worth it to achieve a reduction in the carnage. As far as I'm concerned, those who talk on cell phone while they drive are all in the same class of people - those who put their personal needs above those of the others whose lives they endanger. -- Tom Horne Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards too. We're just working men and women most remarkable like you. ***** Moderator's Note ***** My brother is a Master Firefighter/Rescuer, and has been doing it for as long as I can remember. Although his post is certainly blunt, I'm allowing it because he's one of the people who see the results of distracted driving "up close and personal". Bill Horne Moderator Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:16:16 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <4BB35930.9030700@thadlabs.com> On 3/30/2010 7:48 AM, Tom Horne wrote: > On Mar 29, 3:50 am, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >> [...] >> {article continues at the following URL} >> >> http://skunkpost.com/news.sp?newsId=1986 > > [...] > minority of users. Since those of us in Fire & Rescue are now cutting > people out of cars with their cell phones still calling out to them > from wherever the crash forces deposited it, I believe that last > inconvenience is worth it to achieve a reduction in the carnage. As > far as I'm concerned, those who talk on cell phone while they drive > are all in the same class of people - those who put their personal > needs above those of the others whose lives they endanger. > [...] > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > My brother is a Master Firefighter/Rescuer, and has been doing it for > as long as I can remember. Although his post is certainly blunt, I'm > allowing it because he's one of the people who see the results of > distracted driving "up close and personal". Since it's obvious people continue to flout the law and phone/text while driving, how about 15-30 second "shock" videos aired on broadcast and cable TV at dinnertime showing the uncensored aftermath of local accidents caused by phoning/texting drivers? Sort of like the therapy used in Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" though it's unlikely we could hold the eyelids of home viewers open. If Penn & Teller can show and say what they do during their "BS!" show, such eye-opening "shock" videos of real accidents should be able to be shown, too, to drive home the point [that phoning or texting while driving is a dangerous and dumb thing to do]. Something HAS to be done. I drive less now (finally retired) but I see more and more idiots driving around oblivious to what's around them. I now totally avoid certain shopping centers and stores because driving or walking in/around them is asking to be hit by distracted drivers. I do my food shopping now after 11pm, buy gas around 3am, and totally avoid the streets and freeways/highways between 6am-9am, 12noon-1pm, and 3pm- 8pm which is what I've observed to be the danger times. Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:18:19 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <60b.3b61c315.38e5404b@aol.com> In a message dated 3/31/2010 5:15:48 PM Central Daylight Time, thad@thadlabs.com writes: > Since it's obvious people continue to flout the law and phone/text > while driving, how about 15-30 second "shock" videos aired on > broadcast and cable TV at dinnertime showing the uncensored > aftermath of local accidents caused by phoning/texting drivers? > Sort of like the therapy used in Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" though > it's unlikely we could hold the eyelids of home viewers open. If > Penn & Teller can show and say what they do during their "BS!" show, > such eye-opening "shock" videos of real accidents should be able to > be shown, too, to drive home the point [that phoning or texting > while driving is a dangerous and dumb thing to do]. Quite a few years ago I was talking to the safety guy for our company and he said "shock" and gory videos are not effective. He said people tune them out, either pyscially or mentally and they show little result in improving safety. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:07:24 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <NAQsn.3728$kj3.3352@newsfe08.iad> >>***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> My brother is a Master Firefighter/Rescuer, and has been doing it >> for as long as I can remember. Although his post is certainly >> blunt, I'm allowing it because he's one of the people who see the >> results of distracted driving "up close and personal". His view is justified. But, it presumes there is adequate highway law enforcement to make a different. Certainly in California there is not. Plus, I see cops alone in a squad car using them all the time. What is so special about his training that he can do it safely? Well, he cannot. And, you know they are chatting with their S.O., or other non-essential calls. We taxpapers paid a whole lot of money putting those two-way radios in those squad cars. Today, at least in California, most of the abusers (other than cops) are women that don't look like salesladies to me. It is out of control in California because people know there are very few cops around. Why couldn't the cell phone manuafacturers make all phones sense motion and shut down while in motion? Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:20:48 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <4BB3E6E0.6070901@thadlabs.com> On 3/31/2010 4:07 PM, Sam Spade wrote: > [...] > Today, at least in California, most of the abusers (other than cops) > are women that don't look like salesladies to me. Interesting observation. I can corroborate the vast majority are women, but I don't understand what "look like salesladies" has to do with this -- would you please clarify? > It is out of control in California because people know there are > very few cops around. And, when they are around, they don't seem to nab the cellphone abusers. My town's local paper has a "Police Blotter" section and they've never listed cell phone violations though they do list the occasional DUI, etc. Odd, because several studies have shown that cellphone use while driving is equivalent, in terms of a driver's distraction, to DUI. I'm in the downtown area biweekly for a pizza lunch and if I were a cop I could easily writeup the 20+ violations I see each trip downtown, so it's not clear why they don't do that. > Why couldn't the cell phone manuafacturers make all phones sense > motion and shut down while in motion? Motion and position sensing is easy; one company's sensors I use can be seen here http://www.pnicorp.com/. The difficulty, as mentioned in the original article I cited, is distinguishing the driver's cellphone from the passengers'. Here's the article again: http://skunkpost.com/news.sp?newsId=1986 I really have no issue with a passenger using a cellphone while I'm driving especially if the purpose is getting directions. :-) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:23:23 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <a87.1913e1f5.38e5417b@aol.com> In a message dated 3/31/2010 6:29:59 PM Central Daylight Time, sam@coldmail.com writes: > Why couldn't the cell phone manuafacturers make all phones sense > motion and shut down while in motion? You would ban people from using their phone while on an amusement park ride, or passengers using their call phones in a car, or while on a bus or train where they have nothing to do with the operation of the vehicle? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:43:25 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <barmar-758116.02432531032010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi> In article <4BB05BAE.4060109@thadlabs.com>, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > Many states ban drivers from using cell phones without > handsfree devices, but a recent insurance industry study found > that such laws haven't reduced crashes. It's not clear why, > but one reason might be that drivers flout the laws. It probably doesn't help that TV shows and movies routinely show characters talking on the phone while driving. Many of them are police detectives, who should be setting an example rather than ignoring the law. It's understandable that Jack Bauer might not feel he has time to pull over when that clock is ticking, but most other characters on TV are not under such intense time pressure. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** ***** Moderator's Note ***** I just want to know what cell plan Jack uses: His cell phone works after nuclear bombs go off! Bill Horne Moderator Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:09:33 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <hovs41$5h4$1@news.eternal-september.org> Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <4BB05BAE.4060109@thadlabs.com>, > Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > >> Many states ban drivers from using cell phones without >> handsfree devices, but a recent insurance industry study found >> that such laws haven't reduced crashes. It's not clear why, >> but one reason might be that drivers flout the laws. > > It probably doesn't help that TV shows and movies routinely show > characters talking on the phone while driving. Many of them are police > detectives, who should be setting an example rather than ignoring the > law. It's understandable that Jack Bauer might not feel he has time to > pull over when that clock is ticking, but most other characters on TV > are not under such intense time pressure. It works because it is a SXS Cell phone. Where you see Law Enforcement using phone while driving is because Law Makers allowed that under the law. I was rear ended by a Police Car several years ago and I'm pretty sure he was using a cell phone at the time. He would not admit it, but the city paid the claim in just a few days. As to hands free, no matter, if I have to use mine I find a place to stop or just let it go to voice mail. I have been using radios since the 60's, so I agree it is not juat holding the phone, but not paying attention what you are doing. California has had the law on the books and has made little difference, even after they changed it to allow a stop just for using the phone. Someone posted that there should be a way to disable a cell phone while the car is moving, what if the phone is being used by a passenger? -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:59:04 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <barmar-CC727E.20590431032010@news.eternal-september.org> In article <hovs41$5h4$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote: > > In article <4BB05BAE.4060109@thadlabs.com>, > > Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > > > >> Many states ban drivers from using cell phones without > >> handsfree devices, but a recent insurance industry study found > >> that such laws haven't reduced crashes. It's not clear why, > >> but one reason might be that drivers flout the laws. > > > > It probably doesn't help that TV shows and movies routinely show > > characters talking on the phone while driving. Many of them are police > > detectives, who should be setting an example rather than ignoring the > > law. It's understandable that Jack Bauer might not feel he has time to > > pull over when that clock is ticking, but most other characters on TV > > are not under such intense time pressure. > > It works because it is a SXS Cell phone. > > Where you see Law Enforcement using phone while driving is because Law > Makers allowed that under the law. Just because it's allowed doesn't make it a good idea. LEO's are also allowed to exceed the speed limit and shoot people, but there has to be sufficient justification. Are they allowed to use cell phones for personal calls while driving? But it's not just police, it's everyone. Have you EVER seen a TV/movie character pull over to make or take a phone call? -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:51:50 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <hp158o$r8g$1@news.eternal-september.org> Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <hovs41$5h4$1@news.eternal-september.org>, > Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote: > >> Barry Margolin wrote: >>> In article <4BB05BAE.4060109@thadlabs.com>, >>> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Many states ban drivers from using cell phones without >>>> handsfree devices, but a recent insurance industry study found >>>> that such laws haven't reduced crashes. It's not clear why, >>>> but one reason might be that drivers flout the laws. >>> It probably doesn't help that TV shows and movies routinely show >>> characters talking on the phone while driving. Many of them are police >>> detectives, who should be setting an example rather than ignoring the >>> law. It's understandable that Jack Bauer might not feel he has time to >>> pull over when that clock is ticking, but most other characters on TV >>> are not under such intense time pressure. >> >> It works because it is a SXS Cell phone. >> >> Where you see Law Enforcement using phone while driving is because Law >> Makers allowed that under the law. > > Just because it's allowed doesn't make it a good idea. LEO's are also > allowed to exceed the speed limit and shoot people, but there has to be > sufficient justification. Are they allowed to use cell phones for > personal calls while driving? > > But it's not just police, it's everyone. Have you EVER seen a TV/movie > character pull over to make or take a phone call? It is hard to tell what they are using them for, having been a Reserve Sheriff some years ago; before cell phones, a lot of time we had to call the station via land line. Now they use voice and computers in the car, so they may be using cell phones to contact their station. When I was hit by the police car I was pretty sure he was using one, I have no idea why, but there were a dozen other police units there within seconds after being hit. I had just left the freeway and hit a school zone speed limit, I guess he did not see me slow down. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: 31 Mar 2010 16:26:43 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: New technology could warn drivers about cell phones Message-ID: <20100331162643.28556.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >I just want to know what cell plan Jack uses: His cell phone works >after nuclear bombs go off! Oh, that's one of the many unusual features of his alternate universe. I don't watch 24, but I hear that in his world, unlike this one, people tell him the truth when he tortures them. R's, John Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:09:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Important Changes to [Mass.] 511, Coming May 2010 Message-ID: <p062408adc7d8e312b3d9@[10.0.1.4]> Important Changes to 511, Coming May 2010 In May, 2010, 511 service in Massachusetts will be provided by a new vendor, Sendza, that will be making improvements to the way 511 operates. Frequent users of the system should expect changes that will change the way they interact with the 511 traveler-information system. Highlights of the new 511 system include: * Easier phone navigation * Statewide coverage * No cost to the state * Improved real-time information * Personalized traffic information * Service in place by Memorial Day Weekend, 2010 http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/511/ http://www.sendza.net/511.xml Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:06:27 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds Message-ID: <hp0a06$p8f$1@news.eternal-september.org> Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds March 30, 2010 | 10:00 am Shari Roan Los Angeles Times Only a talented few can simultaneously talk on a cellphone and drive safely, according to a study from researchers at the University of Utah. The danger of a study like this is, of course, that everyone will think they are in the 2.5% of all people whom the study found to be "supertaskers." The pertinent fact is that 97.5% of us can't drive safely while talking on the phone -- even a hands-free phone. The researchers assessed the performance of 200 people using simulated freeway driving while conducting a conversation on a hands-free phone that involved memorizing words and solving some math problems. Performance was measured in braking, reaction time, following distance, memory and math execution. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/cell-phone-cars-distraction.html -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:56:29 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds Message-ID: <pan.2010.03.31.22.56.25.915912@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:06:27 -0700, Steven wrote: > Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds March > 30, 2010 | 10:00 am > > Shari Roan > Los Angeles Times > > Only a talented few can simultaneously talk on a cellphone and drive > safely, according to a study from researchers at the University of Utah. > The danger of a study like this is, of course, that everyone will think > they are in the 2.5% of all people whom the study found to be > "supertaskers." The pertinent fact is that 97.5% of us can't drive safely > while talking on the phone -- even a hands-free phone. Which is exactly why people should have to prove that they have the ability to do anything like this - as well as all the other things most people believe they either have the skills to do or are "entitled" to do because others do it. Put together a difficult, realistic test (you know, like the ones that pilots have to do before being accredited to fly) that requires many dollars and lots of time to pass, and then the "talented few" may well qualify to use a phone while driving. Such tests will need to be repeated every few years to ensure that the skills are still there - no "licence for life" rubbish - which also won't be cheap. Let's see how many really do have these skills, because I won't mind them doing such things if they can keep proving that that they are capable - even give them a little badge to wear in public so we can all identify these people who will be in that tiny percentage of the driving population! -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:52:14 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds Message-ID: <hp0n7e$tp7$1@news.eternal-september.org> David Clayton wrote: > > Which is exactly why people should have to prove that they have the > ability to do anything like this - as well as all the other things most > people believe they either have the skills to do or are "entitled" to do > because others do it. > > Put together a difficult, realistic test (you know, like the ones that > pilots have to do before being accredited to fly) that requires many > dollars and lots of time to pass, and then the "talented few" may well > qualify to use a phone while driving. > > Such tests will need to be repeated every few years to ensure that the > skills are still there - no "licence for life" rubbish - which also won't > be cheap. > > Let's see how many really do have these skills, because I won't mind them > doing such things if they can keep proving that that they are capable - > even give them a little badge to wear in public so we can all identify > these people who will be in that tiny percentage of the driving population! That will not help, pilots use cell phone and laptops and both are violations of airline policy and Federal law. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co. Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:03:30 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds Message-ID: <barmar-97AC09.21032931032010@news.eternal-september.org> In article <pan.2010.03.31.22.56.25.915912@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:06:27 -0700, Steven wrote: > > > Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds March > > 30, 2010 | 10:00 am > > > > Shari Roan > > Los Angeles Times > > > > Only a talented few can simultaneously talk on a cellphone and drive > > safely, according to a study from researchers at the University of Utah. > > The danger of a study like this is, of course, that everyone will think > > they are in the 2.5% of all people whom the study found to be > > "supertaskers." The pertinent fact is that 97.5% of us can't drive safely > > while talking on the phone -- even a hands-free phone. > > Which is exactly why people should have to prove that they have the > ability to do anything like this - as well as all the other things most > people believe they either have the skills to do or are "entitled" to do > because others do it. Since almost everyone would fail, is there really any reason to have the test? Do those 2.5% who can do it really need to, so that we should have a special license that allows them? They can almost certainly live within the contraints of the rest of the population. It seems like the only point of the test would be so that people would learn objectively that they can't do it. But do you really think that would change their behavior? I've seen my cholesterol numbers, it hasn't gotten me to change my eating habits. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:52:55 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds Message-ID: <pan.2010.04.01.03.52.52.551511@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:03:30 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <pan.2010.03.31.22.56.25.915912@myrealbox.com>, > David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:06:27 -0700, Steven wrote: >> >> > Most people can't talk on a cellphone and drive safely, study finds >> > March 30, 2010 | 10:00 am >> > >> > Shari Roan >> > Los Angeles Times >> > >> > Only a talented few can simultaneously talk on a cellphone and drive >> > safely, according to a study from researchers at the University of >> > Utah. The danger of a study like this is, of course, that everyone >> > will think they are in the 2.5% of all people whom the study found to >> > be "supertaskers." The pertinent fact is that 97.5% of us can't drive >> > safely while talking on the phone -- even a hands-free phone. >> >> Which is exactly why people should have to prove that they have the >> ability to do anything like this - as well as all the other things most >> people believe they either have the skills to do or are "entitled" to do >> because others do it. ....... > It seems like the only point of the test would be so that people would > learn objectively that they can't do it. But do you really think that > would change their behaviour? I've seen my cholesterol numbers, it > hasn't gotten me to change my eating habits. Failing a skills test should be an obvious message to people that they actually do not have the ability to do what they believe they can. I have done advanced car control courses which clearly showed everyone on the courses what their limitations were, and a lot of us now try and stay within them. Maybe it won't change the behaviour of a lot of people, but it's better than the situation that now exists where fools believe that they are capable of doing things that they obviously shouldn't - despite the law. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of The Telecom Digest (17 messages)