• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Cell phone while driving

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Please Allen, at least argue responsibly.
Oil company? No oil company paid me anything.

QUOTE]
I don't think I did say any oil company paid you . Do you do studies?? I was not aware of that .

As far as debating responsibly ,I thought I was . I guess if my opinion ,based on the facts/studies that I have included for all to see , is not the correct way to debate a topic , maybe I should just say I am bigger than you and try to bully my point across :unsure:. Would that be the best way to debate ??

Man I guess I got it all wrong on the college debate team . Wonder why we never lost a debate in all those years ??? Facts can sure fuck up a good debate .:unsure:Sorry

I never lost a debate for the team either. Mostly because I did not imply my opponent said something he didn't and I used reason, facts and logic. Still do.Funny how I could always sense my opponent's frustration when they pulled those stunts.
Or got personal.


What Oil company did I cite? What oil company did you cite when you brought it up? Where did that even come from?
My statement of declining deaths was to provocate an example of statistic abuse. I never claimed to have done a study. But as a collegant debater you know one cannot simply refute that statement out of hand or by refuting the source. You must cite your own facts with credible sources. facts are that Americans do drive motre miles than ever and traffic deaths per capital are down. I am making no correlation, just stating the states.

And your Harvard study had pictures with little "facts" upon which to base their conclusions that we have a serious problem. Cause they had these horrific pictures. But seriously,,,, 200 deaths nationally compared to 10,879 ( from the Federal government stats on alcohol deaths) for alcohol abuse?. That is a reasonable point and logic suggests the comparison has merit.

200 against the 200 million cellphone users who most likely also drive.....that is a statistic for sure. Do you believe we can stop that with a law?
 
Last edited:

BigAl

Gone But Not Forgotten
SUPER Site Supporter
I never lost a debate for the team either. Mostly because I did not imply my opponent said something he didn't and I used reason, facts and logic. Still do.

quote]

Still waiting for those "foot noted facts" . The logic and reasoning is your own opinion .I really don't think that will win any debate . Just like you saying I said you were paid by a Oil company . I am still trying to figure that one out .

Yes I do realize how "my source footnotes" could be confusing to some . It sure muddies the waters on a good "I said /You said " debate .
 

luvs

'lil yinzer~
GOLD Site Supporter
so against driving/texting/talking. my brother has 4 kiddos & is so adamant regarding not texting/chit-chattin' while driving. social media can wait; f b is not gonna weep if u wait 2 minutes to post a pic of a pair of sneakers that u wanna buy.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I never lost a debate for the team either. Mostly because I did not imply my opponent said something he didn't and I used reason, facts and logic. Still do.

quote]

Still waiting for those "foot noted facts" . The logic and reasoning is your own opinion .I really don't think that will win any debate . Just like you saying I said you were paid by a Oil company . I am still trying to figure that one out .

Yes I do realize how "my source footnotes" could be confusing to some . It sure muddies the waters on a good "I said /You said " debate .


Well you missed it here pal. I noted my source for the data I posted. I also noted what you implied I said that I didn't. And what you charged I said or implied and didn't. Nothing from you to explain any of it.

You said this....A study conducted by a college that has nothing to gain will mean a hell of a lot more to me than a Oil company paying for a private study to prove it wrong . And I responded essentially that I knew nothing about an oil company, I wasn't paid by one, had not cited one, so what was your point?
You have either misunderstood that comment or misrepresented it.


You also made this charge... as it is obvious you feel that in any situation using a phone while driving seems to be ok. I never said any such thing.

Again you misrepresented my arguments by re wording them, or implying a factual error. That is unfair and dishonest debate.

And as for your Harvard study link...it is to an attorney's web site. Are you kidding me?

BTW, I got the 200 cell phone blamed deaths from that site. Look it up.
Here's a link to 2010,2012 Alcohol related deaths. per NHTSA Down from 2009. But reports for 2011 2012 seem to be on the rise again. Still around 10,322 You can look that up yourself...
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

Here is one from Huffington post I'll just give you...
In 2011, the most recent year in which data is available, 3,331 people were killed in automobile accidents involving a distracted driver, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Association -- more than the 3,267 such deaths reported the year before. About half of 2011's fatal crashes from a distracted driver didn't specify the source of distraction, but when distractions were identified, cell phones were often a leading cause, contributing to 350 fatalities, or 12 percent of all fatal crashes from driver distraction. And most experts say these statistics are vastly underreported, meaning that thousands more lives a year are almost certainly being claimed by an epidemic whose causes are already well understood. D

Distracted driver .....3,331 deaths.....350 were blamed on cell phone use. But somehow 11% is " the leading cause"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/cell-phones-driving-deaths_n_3618767.html


DUH!

But all of that nonsense aside.....

Both you and Squerly have yet to explain this apparently critical difference. How is it ok that I can talk to my wife if she is sitting in the car, but I cannot have that same conversation, over the same topic, via a cell phone with her sitting at the office? One needs no university study to back up the logic of that question. However, perhaps you guys have a study that does explain the difference.

I'm listening. But,in the meanwhile, the logic stands on it's own.
 
Last edited:

squerly

Supported Ben Carson
GOLD Site Supporter
But all of that nonsense aside.....

Both you and Squerly have yet to explain this apparently critical difference. How is it ok that I can talk to my wife if she is sitting in the car, but I cannot have that same conversation, over the same topic, via a cell phone with her sitting at the office? One needs no university study to back up the logic of that question. However, perhaps you guys have a study that does explain the difference.

I'm listening. But,in the meanwhile, the logic stands on it's own.

The difference is that listening to your radio or talking to your wife are not cognitive demanding tasks.

Cognitive Distraction White Paper.pdf (page 7) said:
Multitasking Impairs Performance We can safely walk while chewing gum in a city crowded with motor vehicles and there hazards. That is because one of those tasks – chewing gum – is not a cognitively demanding task. When chewing gum and talking, people still are able to visually scan the environment for potential hazards:

  • Light poles along the sidewalk
  • Boxes suddenly pushed out a doorway at ground level before the delivery man emerges
  • Moving vehicles hidden by parked vehicles
  • Small dog on a leash
  • Uneven sidewalk

People do not perform as well when trying to perform two attention-demanding tasks at the same time. Research shows even pedestrians don’t effectively monitor their environment for safety while talking on cell phones.

The challenge is managing two tasks demanding our cognitive attention. Certainly most would agree that driving a vehicle involves a more complex set of tasks than walking.
 
Last edited:

squerly

Supported Ben Carson
GOLD Site Supporter
(Continued from a White Paper published by the National Safety Council, April 2012)

Multitasking is a myth. Human brains do not perform two tasks at the same time. Instead, the brain handles tasks sequentially, switching between one task and another. Brains can juggle tasks very rapidly, which leads us to erroneously believe we are doing two tasks at the same time. In reality, the brain is switching attention between tasks – performing only one task at a time.

In addition to “attention switching,” the brain engages in a constant process to deal with the information it receives:

1.Select the information the brain will attend to
2.Process the information
3.Encode,a stage that creates memory
4.Store the information.

Depending on the type of information, different neural pathways and different areas of the brain are engaged. Therefore, the brain must communicate across its pathways. Furthermore, the brain must go through two more cognitive functions before it can act on saved information. It must:

5.Retrieve stored information
6.Execute or act on the information.

When the brain is overloaded, all of these steps are affected. But people may not realize this challenge within their brains

The brain not only juggles tasks, it also juggles focus and attention. When people attempt to perform two cognitively complex tasks such as driving and talking on a phone, the brain shifts its focus (people develop “inattention blindness”) (page 9). Important information falls out of view and is not processed by the brain. For example, drivers may not see a red light. Because this is a process people are not aware of, it’s virtually impossible for people to realize they are mentally taking on too much. When we look at a view before us – whether we are in an office, restaurant or hospital, at the beach, or driving in a vehicle – we believe we are aware of everything in our surroundings. However, this is not the case. Very little information actually receives full analysis by our brains. Research shows we are blind to many changes that happen in scenery around us, unless we pay close and conscious attention to specific details, giving them full analysis to get transferred into our working memory.

Brain researchers have identified “reaction-time switching costs,” which is a measurable time when the brain is switching its attention and focus from one task to another. Research studying the impact of talking on cell phones while driving has identified slowed reaction time to potential hazards are tangible, measurable and risky (page 10). Longer reaction time is an outcome of the brain switching focus. This impacts driving performance.

The cost of switching could be a few tenths of a second per switch. When the brain switches repeatedly between tasks, these costs add up. Even small amounts of time spent switching can lead to significant risks from delayed reaction and braking time. For example, if a vehicle is traveling 40 mph, it goes 120 feet before stopping. This equals eight car lengths (an average car length is 15 feet). A fraction-of-a-second delay would make the car travel several additional car lengths. When a driver needs to react immediately, there is no margin for error.

Brains may face a “bottleneck” in which different regions of the brain must pull from a shared and limited resource for seemingly unrelated tasks, constraining the mental resources available for the tasks. Research has identified that even when different cognitive tasks draw on two different regions of the brain, we still can have performance problems when trying to do dual tasks at the same time. This may help explain why talking on cell phones could affect what a driver sees: two usually unrelated activities become interrelated when a person is behind the wheel. These tasks compete for our brain’s information processing resources. There are limits to our mental workload. The workload of information processing can bring risks when unexpected driving hazards arise.

Under most driving conditions, drivers are performing well-practiced, automatic driving tasks. For example, without thinking about it much, drivers slow down when they see yellow or red lights, and activate turn signals when intending to make a turn or lane change. These are automatic tasks for experienced drivers. Staying within a lane, noting the speed limit and navigation signs, and checking rear- and side-view mirrors also are automatic tasks for most experienced drivers. People can do these driving tasks safely with an average cognitive workload. During the vast majority of road trips, nothing bad happens, as it should be. But that also can lead people to feel a false sense of security or competency when driving. Drivers may believe they can safely multitask; however, a driver always must be prepared to respond to the unexpected.
 
Last edited:

NorthernRedneck

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
The difference is that listening to your radio or talking to your wife are not cognitive demanding tasks.

True. When and if I have the radio on(which is rare) it is just background noise and not affecting my judgement in any way. Much like the kids in the back seat and the missus. I generally just tune them out when I'm driving. On the other hand, I know when and if I have a cell phone pressed against my ear no matter how hard I try I am not giving my 100% attention to the road and my surroundings.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
(Continued from a White Paper published by the National Safety Council, April 2012)

Multitasking is a myth. Human brains do not perform two tasks at the same time. Instead, the brain handles tasks sequentially, switching between one task and another. Brains can juggle tasks very rapidly, which leads us to erroneously believe we are doing two tasks at the same time. In reality, the brain is switching attention between tasks – performing only one task at a time.

In addition to “attention switching,” the brain engages in a constant process to deal with the information it receives:

1.Select the information the brain will attend to
2.Process the information
3.Encode,a stage that creates memory
4.Store the information.

Depending on the type of information, different neural pathways and different areas of the brain are engaged. Therefore, the brain must communicate across its pathways. Furthermore, the brain must go through two more cognitive functions before it can act on saved information. It must:

5.Retrieve stored information
6.Execute or act on the information.

When the brain is overloaded, all of these steps are affected. But people may not realize this challenge within their brains

The brain not only juggles tasks, it also juggles focus and attention. When people attempt to perform two cognitively complex tasks such as driving and talking on a phone, the brain shifts its focus (people develop “inattention blindness”) (page 9). Important information falls out of view and is not processed by the brain. For example, drivers may not see a red light. Because this is a process people are not aware of, it’s virtually impossible for people to realize they are mentally taking on too much. When we look at a view before us – whether we are in an office, restaurant or hospital, at the beach, or driving in a vehicle – we believe we are aware of everything in our surroundings. However, this is not the case. Very little information actually receives full analysis by our brains. Research shows we are blind to many changes that happen in scenery around us, unless we pay close and conscious attention to specific details, giving them full analysis to get transferred into our working memory.

Brain researchers have identified “reaction-time switching costs,” which is a measurable time when the brain is switching its attention and focus from one task to another. Research studying the impact of talking on cell phones while driving has identified slowed reaction time to potential hazards are tangible, measurable and risky (page 10). Longer reaction time is an outcome of the brain switching focus. This impacts driving performance.

The cost of switching could be a few tenths of a second per switch. When the brain switches repeatedly between tasks, these costs add up. Even small amounts of time spent switching can lead to significant risks from delayed reaction and braking time. For example, if a vehicle is traveling 40 mph, it goes 120 feet before stopping. This equals eight car lengths (an average car length is 15 feet). A fraction-of-a-second delay would make the car travel several additional car lengths. When a driver needs to react immediately, there is no margin for error.

Brains may face a “bottleneck” in which different regions of the brain must pull from a shared and limited resource for seemingly unrelated tasks, constraining the mental resources available for the tasks. Research has identified that even when different cognitive tasks draw on two different regions of the brain, we still can have performance problems when trying to do dual tasks at the same time. This may help explain why talking on cell phones could affect what a driver sees: two usually unrelated activities become interrelated when a person is behind the wheel. These tasks compete for our brain’s information processing resources. There are limits to our mental workload. The workload of information processing can bring risks when unexpected driving hazards arise.

Under most driving conditions, drivers are performing well-practiced, automatic driving tasks. For example, without thinking about it much, drivers slow down when they see yellow or red lights, and activate turn signals when intending to make a turn or lane change. These are automatic tasks for experienced drivers. Staying within a lane, noting the speed limit and navigation signs, and checking rear- and side-view mirrors also are automatic tasks for most experienced drivers. People can do these driving tasks safely with an average cognitive workload. During the vast majority of road trips, nothing bad happens, as it should be. But that also can lead people to feel a false sense of security or competency when driving. Drivers may believe they can safely multitask; however, a driver always must be prepared to respond to the unexpected.


So, how does any of this answer my question. What is the difference between talking to my wife in the car or thru technology talking to her as she sits inn the office.

Even in this article, it clearly reveals that most driving task are automatic.
The statement that one's focus should be 100% on driving is irrelevant. Because with or without the cell phone, driving a vehicle is by nature and definition, multi tasking.

So, with the exception of texting, web searching and otherwise taking one's eyes from the road and thus eliminating that critical data input to the driver, how is it different?

Quoting Squerly;"The difference is that listening to your radio or talking to your wife are not cognitive demanding tasks."

First and foremost, talking to one's wife is a cognitive task. unless you think she is a dummy. I'll not go there with mine as she is smart as a whip and highly engage able on most any subject.

Aside from that, the statement is non-sequetor. Repeatedly in this debate, anti cell phone advocates have said conversations with passengers are okay, yet somehow the same, cognitive or non-cognitive, conversations via a cell phone, take one's attention off the task of driving. I do not refuse to see that difference, it simply is not there.

Unless you can show it to me.

You have the ball sir..........and when you are done with it, let's talk about the radio's ability to occupy the mind and place that split second delay to which your article suggests.

Not to mention the trip meter, the tachometer, the CD player, the navigation screen..................oh the multi tasking....oh the humanity!
 
Last edited:

squerly

Supported Ben Carson
GOLD Site Supporter
Page 8 of the report I linked to.

While this paper shows the distraction of cell phone conversation, many people understandably wonder how this risk compares to talking with passengers or listening to a radio. Drivers talking on cell phones make more driving errors than drivers talking with passengers. Drivers are more likely to drift out of lanes and miss exits than drivers talking with passengers. Why? Adult passengers often actively help drivers by monitoring and discussing traffic.

Passengers tend to suppress conversation when driving conditions are demanding. Although some studies found that passengers did not reduce conversation distraction, so research evidence is mixed. Talking on cell phones has a different social expectation because not responding on a cell phone can be considered rude. In addition, callers cannot see when a driving environment is challenging and cannot suppress conversation in response.

Passengers can see the roadway and may moderate the conversation. Listening to music does not result in lower response time, according to simulator studies. But when the same drivers talk on cell phones, they do have a slower response time. Researchers have concluded that voice communication influenced the allocation of visual attention, while low and moderate volume music did not. This discussion does not mean that listening to music or talking with passengers is never distracting. Loud music can prevent drivers from hearing emergency sirens, and cognitive processing can lead to a decrement in vehicle control. Some conversations with passengers can be distracting to drivers.
You asked for a study, I gave you a link to a very good one. The last few pages are loaded with the contributors, please take the time to read the paper before you continue to beat it up.

I can only take you to the well Franc, can't make you partake in its content. :smile:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
True. When and if I have the radio on(which is rare) it is just background noise and not affecting my judgement in any way. Much like the kids in the back seat and the missus. I generally just tune them out when I'm driving. On the other hand, I know when and if I have a cell phone pressed against my ear no matter how hard I try I am not giving my 100% attention to the road and my surroundings.

Well, since you KNOW these things, you have a choice to make. It is that option of choice to which I am defending and advocating.

First question a driver must ask....Are conditions safe and stable enough to speak to another person?

If so, answer the phone. Or answer the passenger.

I make a decision every time I use the phone in my car. Please do not advocate taking my choices away because you believe you cannot handle that decision..
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
You asked for a study, I gave you a link to a very good one. The last few pages are loaded with the contributors, please take the time to read the paper before you continue to beat it up.

I can only take you to the well Franc, can't make you partake in its content. :smile:[/quote]
.
Page 8 of the report I linked to.

I did not ask you for a study about how the brain does tasks, but an answer to my question. You have still failed to provide an answer, and your "study" does not make that case for you.

I have read the article, repeatedly. I find it easy to refute by a simple disassembly of co related points the author uses to lead you to the well from which he wants the reader to drink. Yet his own words destroy the premise you make.

Consider first this analysis of cause and effect.


You would think by now that we could say unequivocally what causes what. But the question of cause, which has haunted science and philosophy from their earliest days, still dogs our heels for numerous reasons. Humans are evolutionarily predisposed to see patterns and psychologically inclined to gather information that supports pre-existing views, a trait known as confirmation bias. We confuse coincidence with correlation and correlation with causality.
For A to cause B, we tend to say that, at a minimum, A must precede B, the two must covary (vary together), and no competing explanation can better explain the covariance of A and B. Taken alone, however, these three requirements cannot prove cause; they are, as philosophers say, necessary but not sufficient. In any case, not everyone agrees with them.
Speaking of philosophers, David Hume argued that causation doesn't exist in any provable sense. Karl Popper and the Falsificationists maintained that we cannot prove a relationship, only disprove it, which explains why statistical analyses do not try to prove a correlation; instead, they pull a double negative and disprove that the data are uncorrelated, a process known as rejecting the null hypothesis.
With such considerations in mind, scientists must carefully design and control their
experiments to weed out bias, circular reasoning, self-fulfilling prophecies and hidden variables. They must respect the requirements and limitations of the methods used, draw from representative samples where possible, and not overstate their results.

The author of your study makes the very true and acceptable statement that the brain cannot do two functions simultaneously well. No argument.

He then says the driver must always be prepared to respond to the unexpected. Which suggests that a driver could and would stop whatever they were doing to focus on the primary need. That would include ceasing a conversation with a passenger, stop reading the trip meter, stop searching the navigation map stop talking on the cell phone.
But he comes to this amazing correlation of thinking,,,",we still can have performance problems when trying to do dual tasks at the same time. This may help explain why talking on cell phones could affect what a driver sees: two usually unrelated activities become interrelated when a person is behind the wheel. These tasks compete for our brain’s information processing resources. There are limits to our mental workload. The workload of information processing can bring risks when unexpected driving hazards arise.

Your author then makes a presumption that a conscience and responsible driver would continue to attempt to perform two or more functions, despite an obvious unexpected condition which demands abandonment of the less important tasks so the brain can function entirely on the emerging situation. That there is a delay isn't arguable, because when driving, all drivers divert some attention to other tasks. It is simply how our brains function.

All I am suggesting is that if we use the logic of distraction to ban cell phone use, then we must include any and all comparable distractions which exist in the modern vehicle.

Now to my question which is directly related to that condition of comparable distraction......How is talking to a passenger in the car any different in brain focus and ability to refocus, than talking to the same person, about the same subject, via a cell phone?

It is a question I asked four pages and some 65 member posts previous to this one.
 
Last edited:

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Imagine driving a Beach Duke transitioning from cruise through and to glide path in weather and in IFR. And not being allowed to be distracted by such things as radios and interacting with very complex sophisticated equipment?

You guys argueing this cell phone thing are acting like Liberals - it's all feelings. You feel because you have a distraction issue while driving and cellusage, everybody must have that same affliction, and must be CONTROLLED. No, know YOUR limits and maintain less than maximums.

Nobody has proven that my driving (or Franc's) using a cell phone is irresponsible. My accident record proves the opposite. Been using a phone in my car since 1977 or so. 1 accident. I was not using a cell phone at the time, had both hands on the wheel, driving well below the speed limit, and VERY focused on driving.

OFF TOPIC - Squerly, did you use Orbit Racing for any of your parts?
 

BigAl

Gone But Not Forgotten
SUPER Site Supporter
Well you missed it here pal. I noted my source for the data I posted. I also noted what you implied I said that I didn't. And what you charged I said or implied and didn't. Nothing from you to explain any of it.

You said this....A study conducted by a college that has nothing to gain will mean a hell of a lot more to me than a Oil company paying for a private study to prove it wrong . And I responded essentially that I knew nothing about an oil company, I wasn't paid by one, had not cited one, so what was your point?
You have either misunderstood that comment or misrepresented it.


You also made this charge... as it is obvious you feel that in any situation using a phone while driving seems to be ok. I never said any such thing.

Again you misrepresented my arguments by re wording them, or implying a factual error. That is unfair and dishonest debate.

And as for your Harvard study link...it is to an attorney's web site. Are you kidding me?

BTW, I got the 200 cell phone blamed deaths from that site. Look it up.
Here's a link to 2010,2012 Alcohol related deaths. per NHTSA Down from 2009. But reports for 2011 2012 seem to be on the rise again. Still around 10,322 You can look that up yourself...
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

Here is one from Huffington post I'll just give you...
In 2011, the most recent year in which data is available, 3,331 people were killed in automobile accidents involving a distracted driver, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Association -- more than the 3,267 such deaths reported the year before. About half of 2011's fatal crashes from a distracted driver didn't specify the source of distraction, but when distractions were identified, cell phones were often a leading cause, contributing to 350 fatalities, or 12 percent of all fatal crashes from driver distraction. And most experts say these statistics are vastly underreported, meaning that thousands more lives a year are almost certainly being claimed by an epidemic whose causes are already well understood. D

Distracted driver .....3,331 deaths.....350 were blamed on cell phone use. But somehow 11% is " the leading cause"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/cell-phones-driving-deaths_n_3618767.html


DUH!

But all of that nonsense aside.....

Both you and Squerly have yet to explain this apparently critical difference. How is it ok that I can talk to my wife if she is sitting in the car, but I cannot have that same conversation, over the same topic, via a cell phone with her sitting at the office? One needs no university study to back up the logic of that question. However, perhaps you guys have a study that does explain the difference.

I'm listening. But,in the meanwhile, the logic stands on it's own.

Sorry I am late to the pending accident ! I had a really good reply last night and my computer connection with broad band went down and so just went to bed .



Ok ,,, you win ... feel better now . It would take a hell of a lot more than your arguments to fluster me :yum:. I did get a great laugh out of your reasoning and logic . Very interesting .

My time is wasted here so I'll leave you with this scenario ::


This is an example and I hope that my redneck , backwood logic will be able to express it in terms your advance reasoning mind can comprehend . Please bear with me .

EXAMPLE>>>Lets say you , a family member , a friend or anyone else for that matter needs a operation . The surgeon is good . maybe even the best that ever was .He meets with the patient and tells them he will be using and directing a medical laser to do the operation . He has done this operation 99 times with 100% success. He tells you one bad slip on his part one and its history so that is why he is glad you decided to use him . Then he states that during the surgery he often talks on his cell phone , makes appointments , gives important orders to his employees , and sets up golf tee off times . Important stuff that can't wait . He is an important man and his time is valuable and he did say he is very competent in his skills .

You still with me here ??? I hope so cause I can be so confusing at times .


Anyway my question is >>>> Should that patient go through with the surgery ? Did the doctor disclosures make you feel better about your chances ? Chances are good that after 99% success there won't be any problems .

Now I realize that you may say " Al , What the hell are you drinking and how does that relate to this topic " ? "That's the dumbest comparison I ever heard of "



If I could find my crayons I might be able to explain it better with pictures .:flowers:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Sorry I am late to the pending accident ! I had a really good reply last night and my computer connection with broad band went down and so just went to bed .



Ok ,,, you win ... feel better now . It would take a hell of a lot more than your arguments to fluster me :yum:. I did get a great laugh out of your reasoning and logic . Very interesting .

My time is wasted here so I'll leave you with this scenario ::


This is an example and I hope that my redneck , backwood logic will be able to express it in terms your advance reasoning mind can comprehend . Please bear with me .

EXAMPLE>>>Lets say you , a family member , a friend or anyone else for that matter needs a operation . The surgeon is good . maybe even the best that ever was .He meets with the patient and tells them he will be using and directing a medical laser to do the operation . He has done this operation 99 times with 100% success. He tells you one bad slip on his part one and its history so that is why he is glad you decided to use him . Then he states that during the surgery he often talks on his cell phone , makes appointments , gives important orders to his employees , and sets up golf tee off times . Important stuff that can't wait . He is an important man and his time is valuable and he did say he is very competent in his skills .

You still with me here ??? I hope so cause I can be so confusing at times .


Anyway my question is >>>> Should that patient go through with the surgery ? Did the doctor disclosures make you feel better about your chances ? Chances are good that after 99% success there won't be any problems .

Now I realize that you may say " Al , What the hell are you drinking and how does that relate to this topic " ? "That's the dumbest comparison I ever heard of "



If I could find my crayons I might be able to explain it better with pictures .:flowers:

Well, you included another trip completely off the subject, well away from Oil companies, yet laugh at my logic.......

All that and I still have no answer to my question.
I'll even take it in crayon.....:yum:
 
Last edited:

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Apparently BigAl is having trouble with his internet again. The fact remains that quantitatively there is no discernible difference between the attention given a passenger conversation or one via cell phone with the same person on the same subject.

I will find it unlikely to get an answer. But he asked for one and I will respectfully respond.


Curiously, my doctor just performed a serious operation (bilateral sinus polops ectomy on all eight sinus cavities) on me, with a laser and a standard scalpel. He was cutting mere millimeters from my tiny little atrophied brain.

He used a multitude of technologies simultaneously while performing the tasks. If he added a cell phone to the mix, I would not care a twit as he was using all available tools, including video conference with my general practitioner, to perform, superiorly, his practice.
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
Al, your brain surgeon analog was ingenious, to say the least; you get credit for thinking outside the box. :clap:

However, it was also basically invalid as a comparison. Having known some very good surgeons both professionally
and socially I can attest that their concentration when wielding a scalpel is far beyond that required for day-to-day driving.
You could set off a bomb in the next room when they're operating and it wouldn't intrude on their concentration. They
are already concentrating harder than most of us do under any circumstances, and they are also attuned to the staff around
them. Surgery and driving both take concentration and require attention to a number of outside "distractions" but
the degree of focus is utterly different.

If you ignore your mirror, speedometer, dashboard gauges/lights and everything except what you see out the
windshield, and never converse with any passengers, then I suppose your point is valid. We all have to operate within
the parameters of our own abilities; you know your personal restrictions and the rest of us don't ... but neither do you
know ours.

Not all of us drive like the idiots and drunks - the law should not treat us as if we do. Oh, and for the record:
Licensed driver for 51 years, averaging 25,000 miles per year, for a rough total of 1,275,000 miles behind the wheel of cars,
pickups, straight trucks, and semi's.
Used various mobile radios in vehicles being driven, including cellular phones,
since 1967.
Total accidents = 3 ... two suicidal animals and one fool who hit me while I was parked. Zero moving violations
or vehicular charges of any kind.

 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I'll just say that for each individual if you, like me, don't feel comfortable talking on the phone while driving, then don't do it. If you do feel comfortable, then keep on keepin' on. Whether it causes an accident or not remains to be seen. I've witnessed people do stupid things while talking on the phone and driving. Would they do the same stupid thing w/o the phone??
Talking to a passenger, listening to the radio etc. doesn't bother me. The phone does so I refrain from it. I don't think we need laws controlling talking on it while driving. It seems we all agree on texting while driving, that is where a law is needed and strongly enforced IMO.
Mike
 

BigAl

Gone But Not Forgotten
SUPER Site Supporter
FrancSevin;639308[B said:
]Apparently BigAl is having trouble with his internet again.[/B] The fact remains that quantitatively there is no discernible difference between the attention given a passenger conversation or one via cell phone with the same person on the same subject.
As a matter of fact I was .:yum::yum:

I will find it unlikely to get an answer. But he asked for one and I will respectfully respond.

Curiously, my doctor just performed a serious operation (bilateral sinus polops ectomy on all eight sinus cavities) on me, with a laser and a standard scalpel. He was cutting mere millimeters from my tiny little atrophied brain.

He used a multitude of technologies simultaneously while performing the tasks. If he added a cell phone to the mix, I would not care a twit as he was using all available tools, including video conference with my general practitioner, to perform, superiorly, his practice.

Best of luck in your reasoning and logic !!! :yum:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Best of luck in your reasoning and logic !!! :yum:

Luck has nothing to do with it Al.:whistling:

I still have no answer to my rather simple question.:ermm:

Perhaps it is unreasonable to press for one. But ignoring the request is just rude.
 

squerly

Supported Ben Carson
GOLD Site Supporter
Luck has nothing to do with it Al.:whistling:

I still have no answer to my rather simple question.:ermm:

Perhaps it is unreasonable to press for one.
I have spent a good deal of time trying to provide you with a combination of reasonable, personal as well as scientific views of driving and talking on a cell phone, but apparently to no avail. It also appears that you have a whole hell of a lot more free time than I do. :smile: But be that as it may, I’ll give it one more try.

What (in as few words as you can find possible) is the question that your trying to get answered?
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
I'll just say that for each individual if you, like me, don't feel comfortable talking on the phone while driving, then don't do it. If you do feel comfortable, then keep on keepin' on. Whether it causes an accident or not remains to be seen. I've witnessed people do stupid things while talking on the phone and driving. Would they do the same stupid thing w/o the phone??
Talking to a passenger, listening to the radio etc. doesn't bother me. The phone does so I refrain from it. I don't think we need laws controlling talking on it while driving. It seems we all agree on texting while driving, that is where a law is needed and strongly enforced IMO.
Mike
I have to agree we have all herd of accident's caused by the driver receiving sexual acts while driving I have yet to see any law prohibiting a blow job while driving there are al ready other laws that can be used to cover that same with accidents caused by the distraction of the phone
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I have spent a good deal of time trying to provide you with a combination of reasonable, personal as well as scientific views of driving and talking on a cell phone, but apparently to no avail. It also appears that you have a whole hell of a lot more free time than I do. :smile: But be that as it may, I’ll give it one more try.

What (in as few words as you can find possible) is the question that your trying to get answered?

Yes and your scientific "evidence" was a valid as IPCC Global Warming. And as relative to the question I had asked.

I have asked it since page one of this thread but here it is from post #71

It is as refined as I can make it.

All I am suggesting is that if we use the logic of distraction to ban cell phone use, then we must include any and all comparable distractions which exist in the modern vehicle.

Now to my question which is directly related to that condition of comparable distraction......How is talking to a passenger in the car any different in brain focus and ability to refocus, than talking to the same person, about the same subject, via a cell phone?


You guys are so hung up on proving that one cannot operate a car and a phone.. But, that question has been answered, repeatedly by phone users driving for millions of trouble free miles. Cellphone technology is here, it is ubiquitous, and it is embedded in everything we now do. You cannot extract it. Certainly not by the implication that drivers cannot be distracted, because they continually are.

When every new generation of vehicles arrives with more devices and toys, technologies that add to the work load of driving either by actual manual dexterity, or mental understanding of the new technology 's operations. Designers will find ways to make more seamless, the integration of communication devices into the driving experience.
And each one of them will face detractors who insist the only thing a driver should do is drive. While that may well be true, it is not the reality of our world today.

I would guess many of us have encountered a bad driver who happens to be practicing that bad driving while holding a phone. Removing the phone will not make them a better, safer, driver. But it will allow crtics to tally statistics that imply the bad driving was caused by the cell phone. cause and effect right. Please read my post #71 about that conformational Bias . Thoroughly

That is just my opinion, I need nothing more than time to prove it. In fact, I have nothing more than time for proof. But I suspect in ten years you will see it to be reality. Hopefully, guys like you will still have a free choice in whether or not to participate in this future.
 
Last edited:

squerly

Supported Ben Carson
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes and your scientific "evidence" was a valid as IPCC Global Warming.
You asked for a "study", I gave you one. Don't ask if you don't want it. Also, while the “discrediting of the source” tactic is somewhat standard, it’s generally accompanied with an alternative study to give your use of the tactic credence. I’m missing that piece of your rebuttal.

Now to my question which is directly related to that condition of comparable distraction......How is talking to a passenger in the car any different in brain focus and ability to refocus, than talking to the same person, about the same subject, via a cell phone?
If you’re talking to your wife while sitting stationary in your garage it probably doesn’t matter at all. But if you’re traveling down I-85 (through Atlanta) at 4:45 in the afternoon, it matters a whole bunch.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
[I said:
squerly;639365]You asked for a "study", I gave you one. Don't ask if you don't want it. Also, while the “discrediting of the source” tactic is somewhat standard, it’s generally accompanied with an alternative study to give your use of the tactic credence. I’m missing that piece of your rebuttal.


Reference to material unrelated to the question is bound to be discredited out of hand. It cannot, nor need not, be rebutted.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
.

If you’re talking to your wife while sitting stationary in your garage it probably doesn’t matter at all. But if you’re traveling down I-85 (through Atlanta) at 4:45 in the afternoon, it matters a whole bunch.[/quote]

That is simply not an answer to the question.

Quantitatively there is no difference.

enough with the straw man scenarios.
my patience is done here.

No offense intended but it is clear you do not wish to answer the question as asked. perhaps it is best if we just move along.....please.
__________________
 

Leni

Active member
This is a really hot topic, hot enough to burn hands, and people have very strong opinions about it. I think that this has gotten to be one of those things that we agree to disagree.
 

BigAl

Gone But Not Forgotten
SUPER Site Supporter
This is a really hot topic, hot enough to burn hands, and people have very strong opinions about it. I think that this has gotten to be one of those things that we agree to disagree.

I sure agree with you . Some can Agree to Disagree as I posted somewhere in this cluster F*ck .Some can't. Bottom line is respecting your opponents opinion weather you agree on a certain subject or not . Some take the higher road . I don't own a cell phone and never will , but I do have my own personal opinion .I can't speak for others but "on any subject", If I can't be disagreeably respectful to their opinion AND they to mine , the conversation is a waste of time and I end it .

Like Squerly I wish the cell phone drivers of this world a safe trip in their travels .
 
Top