July 12, 2005

• It also increases your chances of getting a £30 fucking fine, meaning you will probably go over your overdraft limit and get charged by the bank. Screwed by the man big time this month...
• Wowee. Using a cellphone while driving will distract you while driving. You don't say? Would never have guessed. Where would we be without eggheads to tell us these things. Meanwhile, still no cure for cancer.
• from driving. Arse.
• Before New York enacted it's mobile phone law, I witnessed a fatal accident on I-495 (Long Island Expressway). This lady in a giant SUV was busy yakking away on her mobile. I was a couple lanes over from her position, and noticed that she kept swerving between lanes as she was laughing and talking rather animated. Her attention to the road was virtually nil. Along came a motorcycle in the lane next to her. I can still see the image slow-motion in my memory - - her laughing face glued to the phone, the motorcycle flipping into the air and the body flying across the road... After the new law was enacted and hands-free kits were required, I still see people blindly driving down the road, yakking away, one hand steering - the other hand holding the wire & mic at the optimal position from their mouth. No shit Sherlock!
• Can't wait for them to ban CB and police radios. You know, since they distract the EXACT SAME AMOUNT (plus they have that annoying cord! Jeez they're so dangerous!)
• Anyone wanna point out the obvious difference between CBs and cellphones for Knickers?
• I think the difference in the examples you reference Mr. Knickerbocker is that users of CB and police radios are more likely to have "respect for the road" than say, your average driver yakking away on their mobile while driving. Just my opinion though...
• Cellphone = no real ability to create a "convoy"?
• 10-4 rubberducky
• It's a half duplex vs. full duplex vs assplex thing.
• There are no cellphone "handles" like my CB handle, Slappy McTooterpants.
• Answer: with CB you don't have to turn your attention to a tiny mic in your ear to hear a response, the signal is speakered into the cab, so your brain doesn't have to switch off from the road. It's still a distraction, but nowhere near as much. Plus most people who drive and use cellphones are not as road-savvy as CB users are/were, as sugarmilktea says. My theory: most people are idiots.
• CB is no more of a distraction than music on the radio, therefore. And slappy mctooterpants is a good handle, comeback.
• CB radio is forever associated with Chinese food for me.
• Mobile phones are not.
• But what about 8-tracks? Are they a distraction?
• the signal is speakered into the cab, so your brain doesn't have to switch off from the road This is true, but distraction has more to do with the fact that cell phone conversations are full duplex. This engages your brain in a way much different then the half duplex method utilized in CB convesation, not to mention that a CB user has much more choice for when to respond and at what frequency.
• I'm reading you five-by-five, Fridge Cheese Cuntybooks. What's your twenty, over?
• Roger, Bravo, Tango, Bandits at 5 o'clock. Switch all power to...Front...deflecter shields. (I'm not very good at this)
• Lock S-Foils in attack position.
• Tangential cell-phone question: has anyone else been walking next to a jabbering stranger with one of those invisible phone earpieces and you think he is talking to YOU? And you REPLY?? Well, don't do it; it's embarrassing.
• I'll be happy with cel phone driving bans when they also ban smoking, eating, drinking, unrestrained dogs, changing radio stations or CDs, putting on makeup, shaving, and talking to passengers while driving. Cel phones are just a scapegoat for general idiocy.
• What about that great motorway favorite, the drive-wank?
• Anybody else still not have a cell phone?
• There is plenty of evidence that shows that those of you who assert that cell phones are equally distracting as other activities are mistaken. Some research indicates that it's the process of generating words that makes driving difficult, but that listening is a much lighter cognitive load.
• I think you'll all find they are called mobile phones. *Adjusts bowler hat / tucks into bangers and mash washed down with warm beer*
• What about that great motorway favorite, the drive-wank? Ahh, kitfisto, you take me back...umm, to that time when I heard a story about a guy who did that. Sick fuck, he was. Over.
• I don't have a mobile phone, but I do have an Eamonfaeoine which allows me to simultaneously drive and beat up Irishmen.
• Anybody else still not have a cell phone? *raises hand* I don't answer my land line when it rings, it would be pretty pointless to have a cell phone. /hateshateshates the phone has anyone else been walking next to a jabbering stranger with one of those invisible phone earpieces and you think he is talking to YOU? And you REPLY?? Well, don't do it; it's embarrassing I'm always tempted to stare at people on the bus who are carrying on loud cell phone conversations. Or punch them in the back of the head, depending on where they're sitting.
• How do you order pizza? Carrier pidgeon?
• I knee them in the head. But I've stopped that since I got a BMW and am now much too posh to go on the Buses (I'll get you Butlaah).
• Thanks for the link Eamon, a noteworthy contribution to this thread. Keep your rubber down and your metal up! I'm 10-100 on the dirty side. Out...
• How do you order pizza? Ham radio.
• CBs require active use of a hand, rather than the passive hand use required by cell phones. CBs require more dexterious steering due to the cord constantly in the way. CBs cause audio distractions in every ear, rather than just one ear. You must selectively ignore the obvious to make a claim that CBs are more dangerous than cell phones. users of CB and police radios are more likely to have "respect for the road" than say, your average driver yakking away on their mobile while driving Then these "yakkers" have a higher crash risk regardless. If you trust these same bad drivers with the more dangerous piece of equipment, you have no rationale to ban the less dangerous one. If you same people were in charge twenty years ago, you'd have banned computers and video games for being too dangerous. Society will remember cellphobes the same way it remembers those previous technophobes. Adapt to technology, don't ban it.
• koko, you are so droll.
• CBs cause audio distractions in every ear, rather than just one ear. Knickers, I want some of whatever you're smoking.
• I think Chy summed it up best, most people are idiots. I never said technology should be banned. Perhaps the problem is that people adapt too much to the technology, detracting from basic primal instincts such as reflex, for example. The issue is much broader than "cell phone distraction." There are some drivers on the road that shouldn't have a driver's license to begin with (and some who don't even have one). Heh, what's your fave pizza Koko? Pineapple & Ham?
• This thing about cell phone danger is BS... I am driving on I-35 and typing right now and I can tel #@4$a& NO CARRIER
• *raises brandy glass to kitfisto*
• Heh, what's your fave pizza Koko? Pineapple & Ham? *slaps knee*
• You know, one is not *required* to answer an incoming cell phone call. Especially if one has it on vibrate, on which one ought it nearly always to have, so as not to disturb the peace and equanimity of other passengers, officemates, meetinggoers, theatre patrons and assorted other passersby of various stripes. I'm just saying, is all.
• I agree with Mr. K, and I also believe some people are just more distractible (sp) than others. I don't have a cell phone for that reason. I don't want to be interrupted or feel I have to be accessible all the time. I am also easily distracted when driving; I can only listen to classical music (no opera) if anything. Other drivers on cells do make me a bit nervous, however. Come to think of it, maybe I'll get a cell for the camera and e-mail.
• Plus, you know, vibrator in your pants. /obvious
• and rolypolyman, that was hilarious.
• What happens if you listen to Beethoven and watch violent TV while on the cell phone while driving?
• You'll crash through an In-and-Out Burger. what's wrong with me today?
• Or through the Korova Milkbar.
• So I guess this while driving would be a Really Bad Idea?? Seriously, I think it depends on the person -- some people just go into mental "phone land" and the rest of the world goes on the back burner. My ex used to bump into stuff in the house while walking and talking on the phone; I had to beg her not to talk on the phone while driving. My personal solution is simply to minimize phone conversations while driving. It's okay, IMO, to make a quick call to say you're running late or whatever, but end the conversation within a minute or two. If somebody calls me while I'm driving, I generally don't answer unless I think it might be important. It ain't a perfect system, but the distraction is at least kept to a minimum. Side note: Is it just my town (Greenville, SC) or are cops everywhere glued to their mobile phones? Seriously , about 5 out of 10 cops that I see over the course of a day will be chatting while driving. Of course, they don't bother to signal or obey speed limits, either...
• This is simply more support for my proposition that licenses should be split into more levels. For a higher fee to cover longer tests and simulations, if you pass a fiendishly difficult and extremely demanding obstacle course and accident/avoidance training, you get something which identifies you as a "highly skilled" driver. There are plenty of drivers out there who have the ability to drive whilst talking on the phone and eating a burrito from the Taco Bell. Why should they be limited in their capabilities if they are genuinely skilled enough and can prove their abilities in simulations and complex in-car tests? But then, I think that it should be more difficult to get a driver's license in the first place: fewer idiots who don't know how to pay primary attention to their driving would be on the road, and people who can prove their ability get more privileges.
• A sensible approach, your lordship.
• chimaera - You could just as logically have driving tests that involve alcohol. Skilled drivers might be allowed to drive when their Blood Alcohol Concentration is .15 while unskilled drivers might only be able to go up to .02.
• My driving skill increases, the more drunk I am. /WKRP
• I think, bernockle, that your parallel doesn't quite hit the mark. Using a cellphone or something that could be a distraction isn't quite the same as an actual physiological impairment of brain activity. But considering your point, if someone were able to design a proper testing environment to determine that a person has no discernible impairment between stone-sober and .15, but someone else is impaired discernably at .02... I think I could be talked into supporting levels that took alcohol into account. However, I think that the possibility of ANYONE being able to drive through a complicated obstacle course (which includes things like reaction time, such as the cardboard kid darting out in front of you) with NO discernible imparment at .15 is vanishingly small. Not so for a person using a cellphone. More personalized privileges should probably be attainable... that is, if one is willing to pay the full cost of whatever certification they're looking for. But I admit that licensing, enforcement, and the like, become considerably more complicated. At least it would let people who can safely drive with cellphones do so.
• Until you see a giant carp in the lobby of your workplace, chyren. Then it all goes to hell.
• chimaera: It's not so much the motor skills that kill you (no pun intended) when DUI, but rather the impaired judgement. Essentially, you become way too brave. (Liquid Courage, anyone?) I think bernockle's point was: What if 0.15 BAC Joe can drive as safely as Jan with zero alcohol? Ditto for phone usage? *I* like the idea of an "uber-license" that would allow higher-skill holders to ignore freeway speed limits, but impose more stringent requirements on vehicle maintenance & safety gear, driver eyesight, training, and such. It'll never happen, but it's fun to dream about.
• >*I* like the idea of an "uber-license" that would allow higher-skill holders to ignore freeway speed limits You know what else makes the roads dangerous, apart from cell phones and alcohol? People who drive too fast and tell themselves it's okay because they're such skillful drivers...
• Every survey that asks a group to rate whether each is a beter or worse then average driver will have more then half saying they are better then average. Or something.
• I've often toyed with the idea of some sort of tollway in which there are no speed limits. Rather, you pay based on the time it takes you to get from entry point to exit point. So you want to drive your auto as fast as it possibly can? You'll just have to pay out your ass! Likewise, you wouldn't want people driving excessively slow in attempt to get a cheap ride, so there would have to be penalty for that as well. Perhaps a "suggested speed" which would result in an optimal toll? Does such a concept exist? Again, just fun stuff to imagine... It is an intersting concept that chimaera brought up. I don't think it's really that outrageous. Different classes of licenses already exist (as they should). Suppose a new class is created that demands the extraordinary of drivers in order to obtain it. I can envision such a scenario being win-win...
• Here in St. Louis, I-70 has a section between the two sides euphemistically called the "express lane." Ostensibly for the option of opening an additional two lanes in one direction or the other to ameliorate traffic, this lane is widely known to serve as a de facto autobahn. I've driven pretty damn fast on it, right past cops on the "main" road, and they never even glanced my way. I can't recall anyone ever telling me they've been pulled over it on it. The kicker is, it's closed more often than not.
• Anybody else still not have a cell phone? I don't. My all-time favorite: Some cars, in the name of sanity, come with car phones with a short cord, installed on the passenger side and intended to be used only on the passenger side. So, I'm behind this broad with Big Hair, cruising down Highway 1 at about 75 miles an hour, and she's leaning over into the passenger seat, and her left hand is off the wheel and waving around wildly, and it looks like she's having a heart attack or something, so I pull up alongside her, wondering if I can talk her over onto the shoulder before she plows into somebody. And guess what, she's on the car phone, having a real good chat... I eased back behind her and leaned on the horn. I should have gotten her license number and called the police. And now they're talking about installing TVs in cars. Makes me afraid to leave home.
• ...hateshateshates the phone... Same here, Koko. What kind of mentality owns a device that allows everybody and his grandmother to call you up at dinnertime and try to sell you aluminum siding? At least things have improved since the advent of answering machines and the blocking of telephone salesmen (in California; don't know how it is elsewhere). Now I can even block my mother when she feels like calling up and laying a guilt trip.
• I don't have a cell phone nor pager. And oh yeah, Adapt to technology, don't ban it. ... what a stupid comment.
• I'm in favor of making a potential buyer pass I.Q. and sanity tests before they're allowed to purchase an SUV. HATEHATEHATE the things. >=(
• Also, aside from being allowed to use a cellphone while driving or some other privileges, insurance companies can get in on the game, too. Actuaries would LOVE to lower the company's statistical likelihood of liability for drivers who are specially certified as "highly skilled." I imagine the discount on insurance would be considerably more than the "good student" discount.
• Technology has to adapt to *us*. We make *it*. The rocks do not bang the cavemen together.
• I too don't have one of them there cell phones. Hate 'em. Yes, I am a luddite. Oh, and anyone hurts my son while driving and talking... I will go to prison.
• Wowee. Using a cellphone while driving will distract you while driving. You don't say? Would never have guessed. Where would we be without eggheads to tell us these things. Well, Chyren, even with the eggheads telling us these things, you can glance downthread and see a bunch of people with their fingers (or rather, phones) in their ears yelling "nanananana can't hear you!" So it would appear some of us need the eggheads to wrap the studies around a brick and pound it into our selfish fucking heads because we rate our apparently divine fucking right to answer our phone as more important than killing other people. You know, one is not *required* to answer an incoming cell phone call. Amen. I ignore it when I'm driving until I can pull over somewhere sensible and check to see if it was important.
• sugarmilktea: Interesting proposal - it gives financial incentive to folks to drive at reasonably safe speeds. However, you'll need to assess the tolls so that they are financially significant accross the board, otherwise you'll see a larger proportion of rich bastards in expensive cars speeding. Regarding the "minimum speed" requirement, you might need to account for traffic jams.
• Some research indicates that it's the process of generating words that makes driving difficult, but that listening is a much lighter cognitive load. So I guess the ban on speaking to your passenger will be up before Congress shortly. No wait, it wont, because speaking isnt the subject of misdirected, outdated, silly populist vendettas...
• Oh, and more ontopic - the study showed that cell phone use in the last 10 minutes prior to an accident was more likely than no cell phone use. The solution is simple: hang up 10 minutes before the accident and you're scott free!
• /slaps forehead
• No cell phone here.
• My cell phone use skyrockets in the ten minutes immediately following an accident. Never turn it on otherwise.
• wow just read it and MAN is it flawed, even by the standards of this kind of science: The researchers used cell phone records to compare phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash with cell use by the same driver during the previous week. It studied 456 drivers in Perth, Western Australia, who owned or used mobile phones and had been in a crash that put them in a hospital emergency room between April 2002 and July 2004. Each driver's cell phone usage during a 10-minute interval prior to the accident was compared with use during at least one earlier period when no accident occurred. Each driver, in effect, served as his or her own control group in the study. They ONLY STUDIED PEOPLE WHO GOT INTO ACCIDENTS. In essence they have (maybe) proved that the kind of people who are likely to get into serious accidents anyway are often on the phone when they do so. The study tells us nothing about people who are unlikely to get into accidents.
• Each driver's cell phone usage during a 10-minute interval prior to the accident was compared with use during at least one earlier period when no accident occurred It's also not clear if the person was necessarily driving a car during the earlier period. if they just used cell phone records, how did they know? Did they rely on the (hosipitalized with a concussion) driver to tell them definitevly if he had been driving during a 10 minute period a week or more earlier???
• Add to that the fact that deciding on subjects after the "experiment" has already happened is in no way scientific and I think we're pretty much done here.
• I did a small research paper on this in grad school about 5 years ago. The seminal study on cell phone use and driving, conducted in Japan, concluded that the most dangerous part of cell phone use and driving was answering the phone. Because people usually had to look down and grope around for it. I'm sure there have been better studies since then, but that's always stuck with me...
• The study tells us nothing about people who are unlikely to get into accidents. While this is true to some degree, I doubt you'd make the same claim if they were studying the effects of alcohol imparment on driving ability. I believe it's reasonable to assume that some (large) percentage of crashes occur randomly to people who are, as you may describe, undeserving of a crash. Their phone records would also have been in this study and therefore would tend to negate the bias you've described.
• Did they rely on the ... driver to tell them definitevly if he had been driving during a 10 minute period a week or more earlier? It doesn't say anything about relying on the driver's memory, nor during some specific 10 minute period, nor does it say more then a week. It says "comparing phone use ... by the same driver during the prior week." It's reasonable to assume that someone involved in a crash on one day would have been driving with similar habits for most of the previous 7 days. For this specific sample, it's saying that those involved in a crash, it's four times likey that they were on the phone within 10 minutes of the accident.
• Add to that the fact that deciding on subjects after the "experiment" has already happened is in no way scientific This is actually the same as your first point, They ONLY STUDIED PEOPLE WHO GOT INTO ACCIDENTS. And to be honest, this line is in no way scientific make me lol as I realize I'm responding to an idiot.
• It's reasonable to assume... Bullshit. It'd only be reasonable if they had no car and no license, and then you could assume they probably weren't driving. This is actually the same as your first point No it's two seperate points. If you understood the points, you'd see the difference.
• Cut the chatter, Red 2. Oh, wait...hold on...
• Stay on target ...
• Bullshit. It'd only be reasonable if they had no car and no license Um, so you're saying that people were injured in a crash when hitting a non-driver? Go reread what I wrote. Actually, let me just explain it to you. Most crashes involve more then one car. Even if I believe drjimmy11 in that some people are prone to getting in to accidents, it's reasonable to assume that in many cases, the OTHER car is a driver NOT prone to accidents. Do you get it now? No it's two seperate points. His/her points 1 and 3 boil down to "[the study] is in no way scientific". That's rediculous.
• I have a bad feeling about this.
• They're coming in too fast!
• He..came..from..BEhiiiiiind!
• KABOOOOOM!!!111!!!!
• As has been stated before, there are many distractions that can cause an accident. Not to mention other accident causes, such as drinking, speeding, lack of sleep, poor vehicle maintenance, etc. Just what is it about cell phones that pisses you people off so much?
• While drinking, lack of sleep, vehicle maintence, etc are equally if not more dangerous than cell phone use, talking on the phone is an ostentatious sort of distraction, in that others can *see* you doing it and, when coupled with erratic driving, serves as a very visible indication that the person using the cell simply does not care to be safe. Most of us have had our ire tweaked by cell phone users who have previously displayed ostentatious disregard for those around them - taking calls in inappropriate places or at inappropriate times, having distracting or otherwise irritating ring tones, etc. However, this behavior coupled with driving is viewed (however rightly or wrongly) as presenting a actual physical threat. It's one thing to drive intoxicated and be dangerous on the road, as one is assumed to be *attempting* to drive at least passably - but it is quite another to be assumed dangerous and give indication, by virtue of visibility of the perceived behavior, to be dangerous and uncaring of the potential consequences. Put a cell phone user at the wheel of an SUV, which many already assume are both wasteful and dangerous to others, and righteous blood begins to boil indeed. The key, I think, is in the eminent visibility of the perceived dangerous behavior, and the assumption that cell phone users don't give a shit if they're dangerous.
• I think that's partially why cell phones piss people off more than beepers or pdas do - their capacity to invade *our* sensoriums, to inflitrate our "space." No one ever railed, after all, against those assholes with Blackberries - because they're quiet. Cell phones ring, sing and interrupt - they breach our peace, and in some ways, force us to put up with them. One analog might be the large, thumping sound systems one hears one the street.
• I guess what we fail at, and what Chyren pointed towards in his mention that "most people are idiots," is to consider the very real social footprint we have in public. Basic etiquette and the knowledge that some behaviors are inappropriate may be out of vogue, but if more people were able to come round to the idea that other people are people too, with lives both exterior and interior that are just as rich and complex as our own, I can't help but think that we might be a bit more considerate. That's what it ends up being about - having a certain level of consideration for those around you. Sadly, most people don't.
• What Fes said. Call me old fashioned, but talking about your business loud enough for everyone to hear is vulgar.
• It's excruciating to be in a confined space (bus, reception area, etc.) and have no choice but to listen to somebody else loudly blathering away to some invisible person at the other end. At least put 'em on speakerphone so I can eavesdrop on the entire conversation! Better yet, why don't I just sit on your lap and join in?
• Cynnbad, I don't get that feeling of "excruciation", nor do I really understand it. I've been chewed out by self-righteous jerks for talking on a cellphone on a bus, and I came right back at 'em. Seriously, a bus is a loud, rattly, uncomfortable thing with dozens of conversations going on all around. Why is *my* conversation any more offensive than anyone else's? Because it is on a cell? Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Is it the "enclosed space" which defines it as a wrong place for cell usage? Should cell usage be like smoking, "Go stand outside and no one except extreme zealots will give you crap for it"? Don't get me wrong, I agree that loud/long cell conversations in a restaurant are right out. In that setting, one expects some privacy and decorum. But in a bus? Seriously, I think some people just let their pet peeves run away with them. I wish we could come up with a set of universally recognized rules-of-decorum for cellphone usage. Because they aint goin' away, we need to come to some agreement about how to properly use them. Maybe the smoking analogue might work ... but a lot of people smoke in their cars.
• I never say anything to people talking on a cell phone (except during a movie). I really don't object to the fact that they're on the cell, per se. I suppose it's more the fact that I was taught that it's rude to eavesdrop on other people's personal conversations, and I can't get away from it. And oftentimes, I can't help but blush at what I overhear. Although the "fighting with my boyfriend" discussions can be amusing.
• People who object to cellphone users in public places like buses or coffee-shop lines are long-nosed busybodies who can be safely ignored. Or toyed with. Try speaking in ungrammatical sentences -- they are likely to be the same kind of people who object to poor English. Decorum is a waste of time and energy. FUCK YEAH!
• For the record, I find any loud conversation in public to be distasteful, not just cell phone conversations. In fact, I would like to see everyone go back to writing letters, and speaking in hushed tones into folded fans or perfumed handkerchiefs. Also, tensor is a stream of bat's piss.
• For. the. last. time. I do NOT object to cell users in public places. What I object to is waiting until you get on an elevator full of silent people to whip out your damn phone and regale the equally clueless sap on the other end with the inane account of how you fucked over Jones in marketing by telling the boss that he tweaked the numbers in the Smith file. Shit yeah! Goddam right! Great tits on Davis in administration! Now THAT is high snobbery -- assuming that what you have to say right at that moment takes precedence over the comfort of others around you. You are the same people who yammer away in the car, running others off the road. Assholes. (not directed at anyone in particular)
• >Try speaking in ungrammatical sentences -- they are likely to be the same kind of people who object to poor English. Decorum is a waste of time and energy. In other words, having a cell phone is your chance to be a troll even while offline?
• On preview, Koko is painfully, agonizingly correct on all points.
• Also, tensor is a stream of bat's piss. Tough words, for one who so resembles a dose of clap.
• I wish I had said that.
• Stan the Bat wins.
• Um, so you're saying that people were injured in a crash when hitting a non-driver? Wow. Not even. You claimed that if you know the driving times of a person on day n, then it's reasonable to assume the same driving times for day n-1 through n-7. That's unbelievably wrong. I don't know a single person where this method would have ten minutes of success. It's totally unreasonable to make this assumption. If the person has no vehicle and no license, you might have a chance of success at guessing their driving times. Otherwise you might as well be throwing darts at a clock. His/her points 1 and 3 boil down to "[the study] is in no way scientific". That's rediculous. And every point of yours boils down "cell phones are scary", if you want to keep playing over-reduction games. But playing over-reduction is ridiculous. When you quit playing such games, you'll find those points to be completely different. If we were listening you cellphobes the last hundred years, we'd have a ban on electricity, cars, car radios, clutches, glass windows, police sirens, CB radios, damn near every fucking thing, because some coward can always make each of those sound too dangerous. There'd be no microwave ovens, gas ovens, electric ovens, refridgerators, televisions, waterbeds, vaccines, airplanes, boats, blimps, space shuttles. It's a good thing we can see past your irrational fears.
• You're a fucking dolt, Mr. Knickerbocker. I've never advocated any single ban in this thread, let alone banning cell phones. If anything, this study is a combination of technologies. I'd go on record (though I haven't before now) to say that it is more unsafe for people to use cell phones while driving then to simply drive, and I can't believe any reasonable person would argue against that. If you/they do, great. Cool! As for the other technologies... god damn dude, you're a tool. I mean, do you really think people should be operating microwave ovens or waterbeds while driving a car?
• As I stated above, I simply make a plea for common courtesy. techsmith is 1000% correct in saying it is unsafe for people to use cells. It is a distraction, just like putting on your falsies at 70+ m.p.h.
• Actually, in retrospect, techsmith mentioned other technologies. I can't comment on those.
• ... Or is it Mr. K I agree with? (Ususally on principal)? Hmmm. I'm on the fence! Someone get me off it or give me a Depends!
• techsmith, I can't tell if your reading comprehension is really as piss poor as you pretend, or you just like building strawmen. Phobes try to ban microwaves, because they're dangerous and scary. They try to ban blimps because they're dangerous and scary. They try to ban cars because they're dangerous and scary. You could try responding to any of the points that anyone has made, but it's more reasonable to assume you'll resort to another misreading, and then some more namecalling.
• techsmith is 1000% correct in saying it is unsafe for people to use cells. 'unsafe' is a subjective term. It may be less safe, but in comparison to other common distractions, it's negligible.
• I was comparing the use of cell phones to lighting my butt on fire. But please feel free to be irrationally {mascunillity overliterate} here and take it {personally} as a swipe at your personal communications skills. Cheers and all that! Plus, excuse my math; I mistook it for "meth." Humongous apologies; I will now return to the mother ship. Plus, I KILLED this thread, as I always do. thanks
• You're implying I'm a "phobe" (one who tries to ban individual technologies, per your definition), and I've never advocated any single ban, as my previous post said. Clean out your fucking eyes.
• but in comparison to other common distractions, it's negligible. HAHA not for those prone to get in to accidents.. unless you think "four times likely" is negligible.
• and to add (to Mr. Knickerbocker), you're the one who's mixing up what's being discussed here. You keep bringing up these technologies as if they all exist in isolation. My point, that you refused to acknowledge, is that you can't simply combine them willy-nilly and assume that since each is benign when separate, the their combination is also benign. Cell phones make driving less safe. That's what is born out by most studies. It's kinda funny that you keep arguing about water beds. Oh yeah, you're a dumbass.
• No way. No way did you accuse techsmith of building straw men, and then- in your very next sentence- address yourself to some imaginary people who want to ban cars 'because they're dangerous and scary'. You're right- people who find cell phones annoying, and bad drivers alarming, are just like those people who want to ban cars. And blimps. Go on with your bad self.
• OK so what the eff are you talking about again? I really need to know a credible policy of celletiquete. Help Me! Must know by tomorrow, or Jesus weeps. Can I talk or not??
• >Can I talk or not?? Not while driving a blimp. Those things are dangerous enough as it is.
• A blimp?! The closest I've come to that is the Oscar Meyer Weiner truck going down the street. Plus, I maintain that people should generally shut the fuck up.
• Can I talk or not?? ... people should generally shut the fuck up. Which is it? ;)
• HAHA not for those prone to get in to accidents.. unless you think "four times likely" is negligible Read the linked article. Or better yet, get someone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics to read it. The study is so seriously flawed it's laughable. They only studied people who had accidents, and the control group was the same people a week earlier when they didn't get into accidents. Add to that the fact that they checked phone use for the ten minutes prior to the accident and then admitted that half of the accidents occured less than ten minutes into the trip! To sum up, cel phone use does *not* make one four times more likely to get in an accident.
• Oh, now I get it. techsmith is the one who posted this; that's why he gets so defensive about people laughing at the pseudoscience in the link. He already fell for it, and that's why he gets his wittow feewings huwt when we see through it.
• MonkeyFilter: why don't I just sit on your lap and join in? Call me if you want the rest of the taglines.
• Mobiles 'cleared' of cancer risk 56,000 people in a study conducted by researchers from the Danish Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, results of which show no direct link between cell phone use and cancer. Although you shouldn't have kids call unless absolutely necessary because their little melon's still developin'. So okay.
• At last.