Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Obama's NTSB wants to take your cell phone away   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
505
    More: Obvious, National Transportation Safety Board, cell phones, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Governors Highway Safety Association, Transportation Safety Board, 35th state, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  
•       •       •

12406 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2011 at 7:19 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



505 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
AbortionsForAll
2011-12-14 11:10:43 AM  

dittybopper: AbortionsForAll: It's not "groups" who are doing it dude. It's most of the populace. Most people are just too short-sighted to understand anything else. You know what scared the living shiat out of me? I saw this forum on some random website about gun control... There was a poll where the options were:

1. Guns for everyone
2. Guns with regulation
3. Ban all guns

Over 80% of thousands of US citizens voted option 3. I was freakin' horrified. Most people don't understand why a blanket gun ban is a bad idea. They just repeat their mantra "it would save lives" or "guns kill people". It's just the same thing with anything else.

I gotta call "Bullshiat" on this anecdote.

It doesn't square with actual polling data: Support for a complete ban on just handguns hasn't been above 43% since the early 1970's.

Even when worded like this "To protect the constitutional rights of gun owners, state and local governments are NOT allowed to ban handguns and concealed weapons, even in high crime areas.", more people (60%) either agree or strongly agree, then disagree or strongly disagree (38%)
(at http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm - Fark didn't like the address)

You might get a result like you claim from an unscientific online poll at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership website, but even then I doubt it: Gunners would flood it, giving the exact opposite numbers, and they'd have to hide the results.


That is precisely why I was so surprised when I saw the online poll results myself. I didn't say EVERY gun poll was like that, but the point was that I was horrified at the fact that that one was. I know as well as you do that pro-gun special interest groups do a good job at fending off the gun-banning-public under normal circumstances. I might try to find the link and post it if I remember once I get to work.
 
pdee
2011-12-14 11:15:51 AM  
A 19-year-old pickup driver sent 11 texts in the 11 minutes before before the accident,

There's the problem.
 
jabbedxorz
2011-12-14 11:18:03 AM  
Unfortunately, most people who are texting and driving aren't the ones getting injured or killed. Because of this, people who do this reckless act see little reason why they should stop. If it was the other way around, I'm sure people would care a bit more about their own lives and would consider stopping.

Phones are for talking, not typing. When did they devolve?
 
jst3p [TotalFark]
2011-12-14 11:52:13 AM  

pdee: A 19-year-old pickup driver sent 11 texts in the 11 minutes before before the accident,

There's the problem.


Yeah, who the hell drives a 19 year old pick-up?
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 11:58:23 AM  

canyoneer: Spaced Cowboy: Nah, this is the thread where all the functional retards that can't walk and talk at the same time whine and cry about those of us that have no issues multitasking.

Here's your problem: you think you're doing a great job of "multitasking," but in reality you have no idea how badly you're driving while you're on your wireless device, because you're not paying attention to your driving. Trust me: When you're on your cellphone, you drive like sh*t. You think otherwise because you're egotistical and self-centered.


Yes of course. You know all about my driving skills based solely on your own deficiency doing the same activity. Project much?
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 12:19:15 PM  
I'd love to see some of you folks put on a headset and compete in a FPS tourney with squad comms piping into your ear while playing a game where skill is defined exclusively by awareness and reaction time. This thread conjurs images of a bunch of feeble, drooling fools that can barely remain in their chairs due to the combined audio and visual inputs completely frying their tiny little brains.

"Oh noes, my teammate just shouted 'grenade' in my ear and I wrecked my tank into a wall. Halp!"
 
Smelly Pirate Hooker [TotalFark]
2011-12-14 12:27:29 PM  
People who think they can use a phone and drive competently at the same time are wrong.

True, many of them drive incompetently whether they're using a phone or not, but still.

Hang up and drive, assholes.
 
GibbyTheMole
2011-12-14 12:42:18 PM  
TwistedIvory

Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[19][20] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[9] and meta-analysis[11][12]. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[21][22][23] For example, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that merely listening to somebody speak on a phone caused a 37% drop in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are managed.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsf re e_device

The following text is from the same wiki link you cited:

In contrast, the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone ones.[12] AAA ranks passengers as the third most reported cause of distraction-related accidents at 11 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for cellular telephones.[7] A simulation study funded by the American Transportation Research Board concluded that driving events that require urgent responses may be influenced by in-vehicle conversations, and that there is little practical evidence that passengers adjusted their conversations to changes in the traffic. It concluded that drivers' training should address the hazards of both mobile phone and passenger conversations.[31]

If you ban all cellphone use, the next logical step is to ban conversation with passengers. And good luck with that.

I don't remember a plethora of studies involving distracted CB/ham radio use. And I would consider that a lot bigger distraction than a phone.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 12:44:17 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: People who think they can use a phone and drive competently at the same time are wrong.

True, many of them drive incompetently whether they're using a phone or not, but still.

Hang up and drive, assholes.


People that think they can do calculus are wrong. Put down the calculator and stick with algebra, assholes.

After all, it is well established in this thread that if I can't personally do something well, NO ON ON THE PLANET can either.

For I am the pinnacle of all human experience and ability and not merely an internet whiner with massive insecurities that I must project on those that do things better than me.
 
Smelly Pirate Hooker [TotalFark]
2011-12-14 12:52:19 PM  
RE Spaced Cowboy: "For I am the pinnacle of all human experience and ability and not merely an internet whiner with massive insecurities that I must project on those that do things better than me."

No, you're just one of the assholes who won't hang up. I'm sure you have a really super-important reason why.
 
binturong
2011-12-14 12:58:55 PM  
Fortunately the stupid drivers here in IN are courteous enough to voluntarily identify themselves.

blogs.pioneerlocal.comView Full Size


/enjoys a roast beef sammich and curly fries while doing 78 around 465
//drives a stick
 
dittybopper [recently expired TotalFark]
2011-12-14 01:01:34 PM  

GibbyTheMole: I don't remember a plethora of studies involving distracted CB/ham radio use. And I would consider that a lot bigger distraction than a phone.


Actually, it might be less: Generally a CB or ham radio conversation isn't full duplex: In a two-way conversation, only one person can talk at a time. You can't interrupt someone, you just have to wait until they are done talking. Essentially, it's a series of monologues.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 01:08:48 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: RE Spaced Cowboy: "For I am the pinnacle of all human experience and ability and not merely an internet whiner with massive insecurities that I must project on those that do things better than me."

No, you're just one of the assholes who won't hang up. I'm sure you have a really super-important reason why.


My super important reason is that I don't need to and it is nothing that you need to concern yourself with. Worry about yourself and stop whining like a farking biatch at what you imagine to be flaws in my driving ability. My 20 year driving record speaks for itself. Sorry if my being better than you at something makes you whine like this, but that's life kiddo. Someone will always be better than you and do things you can't. Suck it up, princess.
 
canyoneer
2011-12-14 01:26:40 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: I'd love to see some of you folks put on a headset and compete in a FPS tourney with squad comms piping into your ear while playing a game where skill is defined exclusively by awareness and reaction time. This thread conjurs images of a bunch of feeble, drooling fools that can barely remain in their chairs due to the combined audio and visual inputs completely frying their tiny little brains.


Let me guess: You have to be at the gym in 26 minutes, right? Well, because you're sitting through that green light because you're babbling into your cellphone instead of paying attention to the road, you'll be late.
 
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums
2011-12-14 01:31:38 PM  
As a cyclist, I support this whole-heartedly. If you really need to be on the phone, then don't drive. If you really need to drive, get off the phone. Your freedom to be a self-important prick ends where others' freedoms begin. Sorry, psycho.

75% of the time a driver almost hits me on my bike, it is because they are distracted. I see their Bluetooth or actual cell phone held to the ear. Luckily, I am very aware that most motorists are idiots, and I avoid distraction to allow myself to watch out for them. The sad thing is it is illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving in Oregon, and the cops do absolutely nothing about it. If you're complaining about budget shortfalls, then enforce the damn laws.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 01:42:01 PM  

canyoneer: Spaced Cowboy: I'd love to see some of you folks put on a headset and compete in a FPS tourney with squad comms piping into your ear while playing a game where skill is defined exclusively by awareness and reaction time. This thread conjurs images of a bunch of feeble, drooling fools that can barely remain in their chairs due to the combined audio and visual inputs completely frying their tiny little brains.

Let me guess: You have to be at the gym in 26 minutes, right? Well, because you're sitting through that green light because you're babbling into your cellphone instead of paying attention to the road, you'll be late.


I simply do not suffer fools gladly and you've decided to act like one in this thread with your foolish claims about people you've never met.

Lets see your proof of my poor driving. You claim to know so much about me, i'd love to hear your basis for such claims. All I have as proof is 20 years of accident free driving, safe driver bonus' on my insurance, an advanced motorcycle safety designation for course work above and beyond Ohio required courses for motorcycles training, etc etc.

Surely you have some damning proof about me of which i'm not aware to support your biatchy little claims.

Or you're just a whiny prick who can't accept that a small percentage of the population is fully capable of competently performing multiple tasks at once.

I'm gonna go with the latter.
 
canyoneer
2011-12-14 02:13:26 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Or you're just a whiny prick who can't accept that a small percentage of the population is fully capable of competently performing multiple tasks at once.


•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. None were drunk.

•Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. "Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly" from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.

•A 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones.

•A 2003 study showing that the reason is "inattention blindness," in which motorists look directly at road conditions but don't really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. And such drivers aren't aware they are impaired.

•A 2005 study suggesting that when teenagers and young adults talk on cell phones while driving, their reaction times are as slow as those of elderly drivers. (new window)

But you're different? OK. Whatever you say, buddy. Just keep your insurance up to date.
 
AbortionsForAll
2011-12-14 02:18:55 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Smelly Pirate Hooker: RE Spaced Cowboy: "For I am the pinnacle of all human experience and ability and not merely an internet whiner with massive insecurities that I must project on those that do things better than me."

No, you're just one of the assholes who won't hang up. I'm sure you have a really super-important reason why.

My super important reason is that I don't need to and it is nothing that you need to concern yourself with. Worry about yourself and stop whining like a farking biatch at what you imagine to be flaws in my driving ability. My 20 year driving record speaks for itself. Sorry if my being better than you at something makes you whine like this, but that's life kiddo. Someone will always be better than you and do things you can't. Suck it up, princess.


THIS THIS THIS.
 
knightofargh
2011-12-14 02:21:13 PM  

canyoneer: Spaced Cowboy: Or you're just a whiny prick who can't accept that a small percentage of the population is fully capable of competently performing multiple tasks at once.

•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. None were drunk.

•Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. "Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly" from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.

•A 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones.

•A 2003 study showing that the reason is "inattention blindness," in which motorists look directly at road conditions but don't really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. And such drivers aren't aware they are impaired.

•A 2005 study suggesting that when teenagers and young adults talk on cell phones while driving, their reaction times are as slow as those of elderly drivers. (new window)

But you're different? OK. Whatever you say, buddy. Just keep your insurance up to date.


Thing with those studies that I've never found a good answer to, what kind of conversation is going on when doing these tests? If it's asking the participant to do math over the phone (see Mythbusters) or something else unusual that requires the same part of the brain as spatial reasoning it partially invalidates the results unless their test subjects are consistently talking about math on the phone in their normal lives. See also confirmation bias.

/only talks on the phone when driving if necessary
//twitches every time my easily distracted wife does it with the babby on board
///statistics are like confessions gained via torture, inherently suspect. Numbers will say what you want if you torture them enough.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 02:45:43 PM  

canyoneer: Spaced Cowboy: Or you're just a whiny prick who can't accept that a small percentage of the population is fully capable of competently performing multiple tasks at once.

•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. None were drunk.

•Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. "Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly" from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.

•A 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones.

•A 2003 study showing that the reason is "inattention blindness," in which motorists look directly at road conditions but don't really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. And such drivers aren't aware they are impaired.

•A 2005 study suggesting that when teenagers and young adults talk on cell phones while driving, their reaction times are as slow as those of elderly drivers. (new window)

But you're different? OK. Whatever you say, buddy. Just keep your insurance up to date.


Wow, vague studies that likely have opposing studies with contradicting results.

If the average retard can't catch a green light while speaking on a phone, then yes, I am apparently quite different. I'm very sorry that this upsets you so completely, but you really need to get over your insecurities and let it go.

Fighter pilots process much more information in three dimensions at much higher speeds. I don't claim that their skills are completely unpossible simply because I can not perform at the same level as them. I accept that they have an ability I do not possess and move on with my life. You should try it.
 
clyph
2011-12-14 02:47:41 PM  

osafer: I don't think carrying illegal things in your pocket is a constitutional protected right


The point that you're missing is that a NYPD cop asking "What has it got in it's pocketses, precious?" violates department policy, not to mention the intent of the Fourth Amendment.
 
UnityNow
2011-12-14 02:49:04 PM  
It seems odd to me that it's not obvious to everyone that this is a control measure, not a safety issue.

Why would they call for a complete ban of cell phone use, when most people use hands-free devices such as earpieces or speakerphones for all non-text communication? Why would they blow such a relatively small issue this far out of proportion?

Probably the primary reason for this is an attempt to shut down those convenient little cameras, recorders, and reporters (phone-users) riding around in every car. Police states hate free-flowing information. They want only the channels they control to flow.
 
GibbyTheMole
2011-12-14 03:54:53 PM  
dittybopper

"Actually, it might be less: Generally a CB or ham radio conversation isn't full duplex: In a two-way conversation, only one person can talk at a time. You can't interrupt someone, you just have to wait until they are done talking. Essentially, it's a series of monologues."

I used to have one in my car many years ago. And it is more distracting than a hands-free phone. Finding the channel, listening through the static & other traffic, not to mention holding the mic with the cord tethering it to the radio...
 
GibbyTheMole
2011-12-14 03:59:52 PM  
UnityNow

"Probably the primary reason for this is an attempt to shut down those convenient little cameras, recorders, and reporters (phone-users) riding around in every car. Police states hate free-flowing information. They want only the channels they control to flow."

Hadn't thought of that. It might sound a bit tin-foil hatty, but you might have a point.
 
Smelly Pirate Hooker [TotalFark]
2011-12-14 04:18:49 PM  
RE UnityNow
"It seems odd to me that it's not obvious to everyone that this is a control measure, not a safety issue."


Christ...

1) It's a recommendation, not a law.
2) It's a recommendation by an ineffectual government agency
3) It doesn't say you can't have a cell phone in the car at all, it says you shouldn't text/talk and drive at the same time, which is an unusually sensible recommendation coming from a government agency
4) Except it shouldn't apply to Spaced Cowboy, whose superior skills and reflexes put him at such a high level of situational awareness that his use of a phone while driving has never, I repeat, NEVER compromised his flawless operation of a motor vehicle. We can believe him because people never lie or exaggerate on the Internet.
 
TwistedIvory
2011-12-14 04:37:13 PM  

GibbyTheMole: If you ban all cellphone use, the next logical step is to ban conversation with passengers. And good luck with that.


Ban cell phones to start. Absolutely. Next, the logical step isn't to ban conversation with passengers, but to improve driver training. Seems good to me.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 04:37:19 PM  
Wow, the collective butthurt from the mere mention of someone else being skilled at something is breathtaking. What a bunch of insecure little babies we have around here.

In honor of your epic hurr durr in this thread, I will be spending my entire commute home on the phone tonight. I predict the world will end when I pull my unwrecked car into the garage tonight after what, to folks like you, must look like dividing by zero on the highway.
 
TwistedIvory
2011-12-14 04:43:41 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Wow, the collective butthurt from the mere mention of someone else being skilled at something is breathtaking. What a bunch of insecure little babies we have around here.

In honor of your epic hurr durr in this thread, I will be spending my entire commute home on the phone tonight. I predict the world will end when I pull my unwrecked car into the garage tonight after what, to folks like you, must look like dividing by zero on the highway.


Even if -- and I'm not saying this is the case, but even if it is -- even if there are some people who can safely talk on the phone while maneuvering a multi-ton vehicle, that doesn't mean it's okay for everyone and there should be carte blanche. Presumably there's a portion of the population that's perfectly capable of driving safely while, say, high on crank. Does this mean it should be okay to smoke up before getting behind the wheel?
Okay, you want something legal?
It's legal for me to masturbate. It's legal for me to drive. Regardless of my skill at both, it would perhaps be inadvisable to do both things at once, no?

If 5% of the union of the sets | can talk on cell phones | and | can drive| can do both safely, that means there's 95% who can't. I posit that the folly of the 95% outweighs the smarmy better-than-you attitude of the 5%.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 04:52:11 PM  
So where do we draw the line on prohibiting otherwise legal activity merely because it scares you? Smoking, eating, loud music, biting your nails, children in the car, passengers to comverse with, changing CD's, CB radios, having the wind blowing through your hair with the top down?

Or we can stop being reactionary farktards who feel the need to legislate every facet of someone else's life and realize there is a law on the books that already covers all forms of distracted driving and leave the issue alone.

If you can not focus on the road and talk on the phone, don't do it. Problem farking solved. Leave me and mine out of your weird little authoritarian wet dream.
 
TwistedIvory
2011-12-14 05:48:46 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: So where do we draw the line on prohibiting otherwise legal activity merely because it scares you?


Easy: At the point where it becomes a clear, pressing, and immediate danger to my own well-being.

Or we can stop being reactionary farktards who feel the need to legislate every facet of someone else's life and realize there is a law on the books that already covers all forms of distracted driving and leave the issue alone.

Or we can be adults and realize that we do need legislation because existing legislation doesn't cover everything, and there is a very salient problem that needs to be addressed.

If you can not focus on the road and talk on the phone, don't do it. Problem farking solved. Leave me and mine out of your weird little authoritarian wet dream.

Yes, because "if you have a problem with doing A, don't do A" works so well. I guess that's why we don't have issues with drunk drivers. You're probably right there. That's also why we don't need things like public pool safety regulations -- if your kid is stupid enough to fall into an unfenced pool, well, that sucks, huh?
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 05:59:00 PM  
There are already distracted driver laws which fully cover distracted driving. I'm sure this new, overbearing and mostly redunant law will totally fix the problem this time though, right?

How about we work on teaching personal responsibility instead of hamfistedly trying to legislate it wh en we hace numerous examples that laws like this are utterly ineffectual. Making it super double plus illegal and tacking on every possible use of an electronic device as also illegal is farking retarded and everyone advocating the passing of such a bill is equally farking retarded. There is nothing more to it than that, really.
 
clyph
2011-12-14 06:19:26 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: I will be spending my entire commute home on the phone tonight.


I bet you drive a black BMW.

At least in DC, the rudest, most self-entitled, egocentric, aggressive, asshole drivers can be found behind the wheel of a black BMW. They're usually glued to the bumper of the person in front of them, flashing their lights.
 
cement_hands
2011-12-14 06:27:17 PM  
How about a novel idea.

if someone causes an accident while doing something stupid, we HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE with more than just a slap on the hand.

i know, i know, that's too far out of the box for most.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 06:37:54 PM  

clyph: Spaced Cowboy: I will be spending my entire commute home on the phone tonight.

I bet you drive a black BMW.

At least in DC, the rudest, most self-entitled, egocentric, aggressive, asshole drivers can be found behind the wheel of a black BMW. They're usually glued to the bumper of the person in front of them, flashing their lights.


Nah, I don't exhibit any of the nonsene stereotypes veing tossed out in this thread. I just take exception to people meddling with my life via unneccesary legislation. Especially when we already have laws in place to handle the problem. This isn't the UK and I don't need a nanny for a government.

I ride a motorcycle way too often to drive like a fool. If I did even 1/10 of what I've been accused of in this thread, I would be long dead. Defensive driving with an eye on potential hazards and room for escape routes is the only way to ride in a big city like this if you value your life. It just so happens I can drive with those same principles intact while on the phone in my car. Apparently that simple declaration is enough to send some folks into a psychotic strawman smashing rage. It's rather hilarious reading all of these goofy scenarios you folks have concocted about how you think I drive. It's like i'm trolling a whole thread by stating a very simple truth. It's great. :p
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-14 06:47:41 PM  
Oh and I typed that last post from the comfort of my garage. My mother and brother that I spoke to on the ride home say hi. You should all call your loved ones too. By doing the impossible and safely driving home while on the phone, I have begun singing the song that will end the world. Sorry about that.
 
AbortionsForAll
2011-12-14 07:43:38 PM  
Spaced Cowboy:

I favorited you because you're no awesome.

Btw, I'm about to leave work and I'll be texting my ass off the entire way down I-95. And guess what? I'll still be here to argue with liberal sissies tomorrow.
 
AbortionsForAll
2011-12-14 07:44:42 PM  
Er, I meant, "because you're SO awesome" ;p
 
dittybopper [recently expired TotalFark]
2011-12-14 08:24:25 PM  

GibbyTheMole: dittybopper

"Actually, it might be less: Generally a CB or ham radio conversation isn't full duplex: In a two-way conversation, only one person can talk at a time. You can't interrupt someone, you just have to wait until they are done talking. Essentially, it's a series of monologues."

I used to have one in my car many years ago. And it is more distracting than a hands-free phone. Finding the channel, listening through the static & other traffic, not to mention holding the mic with the cord tethering it to the radio...


Meh. I use one every day. In fact, I do *MORSE* while mobile on occasion. Certainly, every day I use my 2 meter FM radio to chat with my buddies during the commute, and to check into the commuter net if there is a problem, etc. It's never been a significant distraction, because pretty much everything can be controlled from the mic.
 
dittybopper [recently expired TotalFark]
2011-12-14 08:26:49 PM  
I should also point out that a conversation with another ham miles away is generally less distracting then having my XYL chatting away next to me, and my first harmonic in the back seat singing "Jingle bells, Batman smells...."
 
Novart
2011-12-15 03:13:39 AM  

canyoneer: Oh, this must be one of those threads in which the assholes who slow down and speed up for no reason and weave across lanes and sit motionless at green lights and generally impede traffic and drive dangerously because they can't bear to put their f*cking phone down boast about how great they can drive while they babble away about nothing on their cell phones. Right?

Here's a newsflash for all such people: You drive like sh*t when you're talking on your cellphones. You're a menace and you should hang up and drive, or pull off the road if you absolutely must blabber on your cellphone. If you think you can drive well while talking on your cellphone, you are wrong. You do not and can not.


You read like shiat when you're all angry. There was maybe one idiot here defending texting while driving. The outrage is over banning HANDS-FREE devices. Hands-free, eyes-free. Would you be ok if I banned you from listening to music in your car? Does that make you a "menace"?
 
Novart
2011-12-15 03:16:05 AM  

TwistedIvory: Spaced Cowboy: So where do we draw the line on prohibiting otherwise legal activity merely because it scares you?

Easy: At the point where it becomes a clear, pressing, and immediate danger to my own well-being.

Or we can stop being reactionary farktards who feel the need to legislate every facet of someone else's life and realize there is a law on the books that already covers all forms of distracted driving and leave the issue alone.

Or we can be adults and realize that we do need legislation because existing legislation doesn't cover everything, and there is a very salient problem that needs to be addressed.

If you can not focus on the road and talk on the phone, don't do it. Problem farking solved. Leave me and mine out of your weird little authoritarian wet dream.

Yes, because "if you have a problem with doing A, don't do A" works so well. I guess that's why we don't have issues with drunk drivers. You're probably right there. That's also why we don't need things like public pool safety regulations -- if your kid is stupid enough to fall into an unfenced pool, well, that sucks, huh?


That's easy then: hands-free devices do not pose a danger to you. You can cease caring.
 
TwistedIvory
2011-12-15 10:42:17 AM  

Novart: That's easy then: hands-free devices do not pose a danger to you. You can cease caring.


False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsf re e_device
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-15 11:57:54 AM  
Oh shiat son, he's throwing down the wikipedia gauntlet. There's no winning this fight now. They have wikipedia and studies on their side.

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

"Hai guise, stop talking in my ear, i'm gunna wreck mah plane, lol."
 
PullItOut
2011-12-15 07:58:59 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Oh shiat son, he's throwing down the wikipedia gauntlet. There's no winning this fight now. They have wikipedia and studies on their side.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x225]
"Hai guise, stop talking in my ear, i'm gunna wreck mah plane, lol."


If having fighter pilot reflexes is a requirement to drive safely while on the phone, you may want to reconsider whether you still want that legal.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-15 08:29:14 PM  

PullItOut: Spaced Cowboy: Oh shiat son, he's throwing down the wikipedia gauntlet. There's no winning this fight now. They have wikipedia and studies on their side.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x225]
"Hai guise, stop talking in my ear, i'm gunna wreck mah plane, lol."

If having fighter pilot reflexes is a requirement to drive safely while on the phone, you may want to reconsider whether you still want that legal.


I merely use it as proof that people do exist that can handle these sorts of stimuli without turning into drooling farking retards. My argument all along has been that if you cant handle your vehicle and a phone at the same time, don't do it. I handle mine just fine and don't need you, or the government telling me I'm incapable of holding a conversation and driving because I have years of proof that I'm not only capable, but quite good at it.

Hands free mobile phone calls from the car are one of the least distracting things you can do if you ask me. Many of hte other activities we've been citing require taking eyes and focus off the road. A hands free call does neither. I'm a worse driver trying to eat a road lunch than I am on a phone call, but no one is screaming that McDonalds should be illegal.

Another great example: I rarely text at all. The one time I actually do fire off a few texts is when I'm doing the stairs at work. I go up and down 8 flights of stairs for a bit of exercise after lunch. I can hit every step in stride without tripping up while not looking at anything but my cell phone screen and typing with my fat little thumbs. This shiat isn't hard for some people. We don't need super specific laws passed for every activity that your average 85 IQ American Idiot has trouble with. There's not enough manpower in the world to document all the shiat this culture can't do right.

What this "epidemic" really requires is education and responsibility, not a farking cop banging on my window trying to extort money out of me to pay for his new BMW cruiser because he thinks he saw my mouth move while driving 75 down the highway at night. My mother can't see well at night. You know what she does, she doesn't drive at night. She's not banging on my congressman's door asking that we make driving at night illegal. Then again, my mother isn't a farking idiot like most of the posters in this thread.
 
TwistedIvory
2011-12-15 10:57:40 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: Oh shiat son, he's throwing down the wikipedia gauntlet. There's no winning this fight now. They have wikipedia and studies on their side.


In other words: The other guy provides science and sources and I'm unable to provide either, so let's just go ad hominem. Right. Got it.

Spaced Cowboy: I merely use it as proof that people do exist that can handle these sorts of stimuli without turning into drooling farking retards. . .I handle mine just fine and don't need you, or the government telling me I'm incapable of holding a conversation and driving because I have years of proof that I'm not only capable, but quite good at it.


They do exist. These people are also in the minority. Legislation is for the majority. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a well-qualified motorcyclist with track time and a racing license under my belt. Just because I have proven that I'm capable of handling a vehicle at 180mph doesn't mean I get to do this on a public road.

I, for one, doubt that you are "quite good" at what you claim and I believe we do need legislative intervention to reduce the impacts of a bad and burgeoning problem. Do you really want to make the argument that because you believe that you are capable of doing something, that everyone else is capable of this and it shouldn't be governed or overseen?

Spaced Cowboy: My argument all along has been that if you cant handle your vehicle and a phone at the same time, don't do it.


You either know perfectly well that people are not good judges of their own abilities. Well, either you know this and you're trolling or you're ignoring reality. I understand that you want to prove a point, but citing weak anecdotes based on your own self-justification is not exactly universalizable.

Spaced Cowboy: Hands free mobile phone calls from the car are one of the least distracting things you can do if you ask me.


I didn't, and repeated independent, large-scale studies contradict your opinions with facts. I've cited some. Have you?

Spaced Cowboy: I'm a worse driver trying to eat a road lunch than I am on a phone call, but no one is screaming that McDonalds should be illegal.


PUT DOWN YOUR F*CKING HAMBURGER AND DRIVE.

Spaced Cowboy: Many of hte other activities we've been citing require taking eyes and focus off the road. A hands free call does neither.


If you'd bothered to read any of the sources, you'd note that eyes-off-the-road only accounts for a fraction of the total problem. Have you really never seen a driver with a phone to his ear, driving with that glazed-over look and weaving all over the place? Hell, I saw it just today. Dude damn near ran me off the road. He had his eyes up, but as they say, though the lights were on there was nobody home. The act of driving was far secondary to that damn cell phone.

Spaced Cowboy: What this "epidemic" really requires is education and responsibility,


Yes. It's a good thing that we can trust every American to act in not only their own self-interest, but also in the interest of the public. This is why we don't need laws about taxation or littering or public urination or firearms, right?

Spaced Cowboy: not a farking cop banging on my window trying to extort money out of me to pay for his new BMW cruiser because he thinks he saw my mouth move while driving 75 down the highway at night.


That is the very definition of the straw man fallacy.

Spaced Cowboy: My mother can't see well at night. You know what she does, she doesn't drive at night. She's not banging on my congressman's door asking that we make driving at night illegal.


She recognizes her shortcomings. Most people on phones, I'd posit, do not.
Furthermore, it IS illegal to drive while vision-impaired.
So what's your point, again?
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-16 12:41:27 AM  
My point has been reiterated about a dozen times. You've said nothing of note that I haven't already directly addressed. You want to drive without your phone, do it, but i'm not supporting legislation to combat the OMG PANIC 3% of road fatalities supposedly caused by phones nor am I going to give the government carte blanche over every electronic device in my vehicle based on your farking retarded wikipedia link that, if you bothered to even read the whole section, doesn't even support you. There's contradictory studies listed in your own citation, you fool. Furthermore, almost all of those studies are over 6 years old, so they take none of the recent developments in motor vehicle safety and cell phone innovation into account. I can dial, speak, and hang up without once taking my hands off the wheel or my eyes off the road. That wasn't the case in 2003 when most of your little university kiddies were running their goofy little psychology experiments in sterile, unrealistic environments.

You're just another fool pretending you know me or how I drive and whining that someone out there is skilled enough to handle their business and intelligent enough to recognize it. Every claim I've made about my driving ability is true and a decade of heavy phone use and heavy travel support it far more than the gut feeling of some random dude on the internet.

Merely leaving your house is dangerous. You play a dangerous game with what tasks "the average American" can perform safely and how we should automatically legislate anything they can't handle. I work with professional adults who can barely add 2 digit numbers in their head. That's really not the gauge I want to use to pass massive, extremely invasive legislation. What the fark will be left legal if that is your metric?

My boss at a multbillion dollar company wears velcro shoes. Let's make shoelaces illegal! You could totes trip on them and fall down the stairs. Now scurry off to your wikipedia entry on logical fallacies so you can have some semblance of a comeback to that quip.

And since merely mocking you doesn't seem like enough of a nail in the coffin and you all LUUUURVE your silly little university psychology studies so much, why don't I throw some real data at you.

Link (new window)

Woops, right form the horses mouth. Significant drop in fatalities every year since 2005. The same time span in which cell phone use among the public has spiked significantly AND the miles driven by Americans has similarly spiked.

So there's my point. What now? What's your next foolish argument that I get to completely dismantle? Try to make it challenging this time, the joy of this lopsided debate is rapidly waning.
 
Spaced Cowboy
2011-12-16 12:44:59 AM  
Oh and the icing on the cake that ALL of you have ignored over and over:

Distracted driving is already illegal in nearly every state and used to help assign fault in the case of auto accidents. If I was speaking with rational adults here, we would call that game over and this thread would have had 20 comments...
 
TwistedIvory
2011-12-16 10:51:44 AM  
Your arguments fall into one of three categories:
-Reductio ad absurdum (legislating one major thing is the same thing as legislating something very minor and inconsequential)
-Ad hominem (you're a fool)
-Straw man (Your point is that nobody can do any two things at once, and here's why that is wrong)
(And then the fourth bit is that you just ignore counterpoints against which you cannot defend.)

Why don't you actually provide a reasonable, logical argument to my points rather than resorting to fallacies?

You've not directly responded to any of my criticisms or provided any evidence of your own. The studies linked in the Wiki vary in nature but all indicate that driving while chatting on a phone is f*cking dangerous. Hands-free devices don't really help, and you've missed that ball too. And then you complain that there have been massive advances in vehicle safety wrt electronics?
Yeah, such as what, Mr. Perfectdriver?

Spaced Cowboy: My point has been reiterated about a dozen times.


Your anecdotes and fallacies have been reiterated. That's not the same as a point, and not logically valid anyway.

Spaced Cowboy: You've said nothing of note that I haven't already directly addressed.


False. See above.

Spaced Cowboy: legislation to combat the OMG PANIC 3% of road fatalities supposedly caused by phones


See above. The figure is around 10%.

Spaced Cowboy: if you bothered to even read the whole section, doesn't even support you.


False.

Spaced Cowboy: There's contradictory studies listed in your own citation, you fool.


Different means of study and one outcome only that's not perfectly in line. All say the same damn thing in conclusion.

Spaced Cowboy: You're just another fool pretending you know me or how I drive and whining that someone out there is skilled enough to handle their business and intelligent enough to recognize it.


Yes. You're a paragon of fighter-pilot reflexes and double-agent acuity. Therefore everyone should be allowed to do anything they want while piloting heavy machinery at 75mph twelve inches from my body. Right. Hey, y'know what? Medical marijuana is legal here now. Maybe it's okay to toke up and drive, too! I'm sure SOME people could handle it, so let's make it okay for everyone.

Spaced Cowboy: Distracted driving is already illegal in nearly every state and used to help assign fault in the case of auto accidents.


And cell phone use needs to be put under that heading. Impaired driving is already illegal, so why is driving specifically while impaired by alcohol a separate clause, too?

Spaced Cowboy: My boss at a multbillion dollar company wears velcro shoes. Let's make shoelaces illegal!


Reductio ad absurdum.

Spaced Cowboy: And since merely mocking you doesn't seem like enough of a nail in the coffin and you all LUUUURVE your silly little university psychology studies so much,


Yes. We get it. You're a fan of mocking (what you perceive to be) your opponent while ignoring the argument, and willfully ignoring, y'know, science. (Incidentally, that's kind of how I see the right wing these days, too.)

Spaced Cowboy: Woops, right form the horses mouth. Significant drop in fatalities every year since 2005.


What has happened since 2005 that would cause traffic fatalities to drop?
Certainly not safety features like side-curtain airbags introduced in the mid-2000s. Certainly not advancements in structural engineering, such as aluminum space frames and crumple zones around the engine of a vehicle.
There's definitely not a reduced traffic factor. After all, since the job rate has been declining since about 2007, there are more people driving on the roads -- oh, wait, no, the opposite of that. There's less traffic on the roads, so it does stand to reason that there are fewer fatalities.
But no, this MUST BE DUE TO PEOPLE TALKING ON CELL PHONES AND BEING ATTENTIVE. Regardless of the fact that cell phones are implicated in 10% of vehicle accidents, of course.

Spaced Cowboy: Oh and the icing on the cake that ALL of you have ignored over and over:

Distracted driving is already illegal in nearly every state and used to help assign fault in the case of auto accidents. If I was speaking with rational adults here, we would call that game over and this thread would have had 20 comments...


Yes, please, do tell me how any of my arguments are invalid.
Your challenge this time: Do so in a manner that doesn't fall back on logical fallacies and that actually makes sense. Also, try to avoid storytime and the anecdotes you so dearly coddle.
 
TwistedIvory
2011-12-16 10:56:54 AM  

Spaced Cowboy: Link (new window)


From your own link:

"The U.S. DOT has launched a dedicated website, Distraction.gov, to provide the public with a comprehensive source of information on distracted driving."

From distraction.gov:

"ONE TEXT OR CALL
COULD WRECK IT ALL

Distracted driving is a dangerous epidemic on America's roadways. In 2009 alone, nearly 5,500 people were killed and 450,000 more were injured in distracted driving crashes.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is leading the effort to stop texting and cell phone use behind the wheel. Since 2009, we have held two national distracted driving summits, banned texting and cell phone use for commercial drivers, encouraged states to adopt tough laws, and launched several campaigns to raise public awareness about the issue."

Furthermore:

http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/faq.html

"I'm a pretty good driver. Can't some people text or talk on the phone and drive safely?
No, they can't. Research indicates that the burden of talking on a cell phone - even if it's hands-free - saps the brain of 39% of the energy it would ordinarily devote to safe driving. Using a cell phone while driving delays your reaction time as much as having a blood alcohol concentration of .08, the legal limit for drunk driving. Drivers who use a hand-held device are 4 times more likely to get into a crash serious enough to cause injury. Texting drivers are 23 times more likely to get involved in a crash."

ATTENTION SPACED COWBOY: THESE ARE FROM YOUR OWN LINK.

"Is it safe to use a hands-free device to talk on a cell phone while driving?
So far, the research indicates that the cognitive distraction of having a hands-free phone conversation causes drivers to miss the important visual and audio cues that would ordinarily help you avoid a crash."

Spaced Cowboy: Woops, right form the horses mouth.


Couldn't have said it better. Well, except for spelling "Whoops" correctly.
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want to see behind the curtain? Try

TotalFark

It's how we feed the squirrel

learn more | sign up

Report
On Twitter

Report
Top Commented
Top Commented ▼
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.
Report