Author Topic: Should Cellular phone conversations be banned while driving? (Read 1631 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:18:12 AM »

Here's some stuff that looks to be more conclusive.

"Carnegie Mellon study provides conclusive evidence that cell phones distract drivers
PITTSBURGH-By studying images of the brain at work, Carnegie Mellon University scientists have concluded that we cannot converse on cell phones without distracting our brains from the task of driving.

In findings reported in the journal NeuroImage, a team led by Carnegie Mellon Psychology Professor Marcel Just discovered that attending to a conversation significantly distracts the brain from processing complex visual information.

"This has direct implications for cell phone use during driving because it answers one of the classic questions about human thinking. We've demonstrated that the human brain has a limited ability to perform two cognitive tasks concurrently under demanding circumstances, such as simultaneously conversing and driving," said Just. "

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/cmu-cms072601.php

So no, it's not just soccer moms. It's everyone.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:19:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Some drivers are scary when they talk to passengers - they turn their head at the backseat passenger and talks for few seconds.

In rebuttal, those same type of drivers are usual plain scarey, with or without a passenger....

Eagler · « **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:27:19 AM »

they can talk all they want in the car, just wire the ignition into the phone - when one is on the other is off...

seriously - pagers, cellphones, pdas - is anything that freakin important it can't wait until you are parked and/or out of the movies???

stop and smell the flowers, pet your dog, hug your kids - life is short - turn off the crap

Fatty · « **Reply #18 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:27:51 AM »

So Thrawn, conversations are distracting (I'm very saddened that someone probably got their degree based on that profound discovery). So the danger has moved from being the phone to being the conversation itself, not suprising, when NY first started debating its hands free law there were a lot of calls to outlaw the phones themselves and even eating in the car.

Did they do a study on the distractions of having a child in the backseat? Should we outlaw those too? (I'm game).

midnight Target · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:28:53 AM »

Just one more civil liberty the Right Wing Reactionaries want to take away from us.

(how'd I do Cabby?)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:30:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Just one more civil liberty the Right Wing Reactionaries want to take away from us.

(how'd I do Cabby?)

The New York ban came from a Democrat...you did lousy as usual.

Curval · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:34:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty
So Thrawn, conversations are distracting (I'm very saddened that someone probably got their degree based on that profound discovery). So the danger has moved from being the phone to being the conversation itself, not suprising, when NY first started debating its hands free law there were a lot of calls to outlaw the phones themselves and even eating in the car.

Did they do a study on the distractions of having a child in the backseat? Should we outlaw those too? (I'm game).

Lol...Fatty, you brought up the nanny issue..and I agree wholeheartedly. If you ban cell phones,you better ban talking and loud music too. Also, children can never fight in a car because that is possibly the most distracting thing for a driver etc etc.

For heaven's sake guys...you are Americans. How can you let someone tell you what to do in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:36:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
For heaven's sake guys...you are Americans. How can you let someone tell you what to do in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

We don't, the People take up lobbying their state Rep or Senator for such legislation. So, in essense, the laws come from complaints of ordinary people calling their representives. State reps carry the torch for the people from there..

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:40:25 AM »

Hands free or not the whole point is are you mentally focused on driving and road conditions or on your conversation.

Naso · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:42:53 AM »

Here it's already forbidden, btw, some month ago, they permitted with a new law the use of the phone with headphones (auricular?), but not the handling to dial the number.

You must be hands free to drive.

Anyway, it's more a question of the driver, I mean, "priority of tasks"

Usually, when I answer at cell in car using the Headphone, I still mantain a good control of the driving activity, what suffer is the ability to mantain a good speed in conversation.

By driving I use this priority.

1) Watch out around and drive.
2) other tasks.

There is a lot of people that, With or without cell phones have the following:

1) Other tasks
2) Drive
3) Watch out (optional).

Ripsnort · « **Reply #25 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:48:02 AM »

Naso, the study suggests that your reaction time is still considerably less than without a phone conversation at all regardless how good "you" think your reaction time is...but its just another "study"...so I digress.

Curval · « **Reply #26 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:49:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
We don't, the People take up lobbying their state Rep or Senator for such legislation. So, in essense, the laws come from complaints of ordinary people calling their representives. State reps carry the torch for the people from there..

Ahhh Rip, but aren't you forgetting those pesky little lobby groups that run around changing the minds of those representatives when it actually comes time to vote? They sort of get in the way of the perfect little political system you describe.

One such group springs to mind...the NRA.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #27 on:** January 28, 2003, 09:56:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Ahhh Rip, but aren't you forgetting those pesky little lobby groups that run around changing the minds of those representatives when it actually comes time to vote? They sort of get in the way of the perfect little political system you describe.

One such group springs to mind...the NRA.

And if one does not like it, they can get a counter-lobby group together, thats the beauty of a democracy, if you don't do anything, others vote for you. You must be pro-active if you want change.

Sure beats the hell out of being a Subject of the Queen.

Fatty · « **Reply #28 on:** January 28, 2003, 10:01:15 AM »

I'm sure there are studies that say most firearm injuries come from firearms too Rip (it would be an equally groundbreaking study to undertake if not, someone should tackle it and get ahold of that grant money), but I'm in no hurry to ban those either.

Curval · « **Reply #29 on:** January 28, 2003, 10:06:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
And if one does not like it, they can get a counter-lobby group together, thats the beauty of a democracy, if you don't do anything, others vote for you. You must be pro-active if you want change.

Pleeeaaaseee Rip.

An anti-NRA lobby group...hmmm...like this hasn't been tried before. The NRA has extremely deep pockets and far too much political clout for any "new" group to have a hope of changing the state Rep's mind. So he loses one or two votes by not listening to the new group...he GAINS a bunch of NRA card carrying voters and quite possibly a condo in Vail for siding with them.

A great big

for your democratic system.