# Cell Phones: Good, Bad or Crazy



## yo_paully (Sep 20, 2004)

Where do you draw the line with cell phone use? 

Pregnant mobile user arrested for talking too loudly

Your sitting in a movie theatre, in the middle of watching a movie that you just shelled out too much $$$ for, munching on an overpriced bag of popcorn when a cell phone rings a few rows in front of you. If that?s not enough of a distraction, the person takes the call! A few people show their dissatisfaction by shouting: ?Shut up? and ?Get off the phone? ? ultimately ruining that scene of the movie!

?On the other hand cell phones are really convenient for a variety of reasons like when you?re running late, or you have car problems, etc.

I guess it?s not the cell phone, it?s the user. Maybe cell phone etiquette should be taught in schools.
________
buy silversurfer vaporizer


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Cell Phone etiquette should be tought in schools considering that when I got to my pick up my sister at her high school every other kid has one.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Stat of the month:

23% of British children in PRIMARY school have mobile phones...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I thought I'd NEVER want a cell phone. After all who wants to be contactable anywhere. But I eventually did get a work cellphone which I do find handy for work. The most important button on the phone - the off switch. I keep it off most of the time. I only turn it on when I'm making a call or I'm expecting a call in the next hour or two. I find the convenience of a cell phone is to be able to make a call without having to worry about find a phone, I don't find the convience to be contactable anywhere and I generally do not publish the phone # at work - I try to use it to make calls and not to receive calls.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Cell phones! Don't get me started.

When I'm in Vancouver I spend a lot of time in the Granville Island Market, a place that is often packed with people of every persuasion.

There is so much cell phone use there it seems like every other person has one stuck to their ear. On two occasions I've witnessed guys having very intense conversations involving yelling and cursing. The one guy that I saw recently was mid-fifties, well-dressed and obviously intensely involved in some kind of business deal that was stressing him out. He wandered around the market for about an hour cursing and completely oblivious to the fact that everyone could hear what he was talking about. As he paced around the Market you could see heads turn and stare incredulously as this buffoon who appeared to be insane as he ranted at the guy on the other end.

Another guy I saw there, who was again a middle-aged business type, was having a yelling match with an employee or underling of some kind who hadn't met his expectations. He was yelling, red in the face, saying, "And tomorrow you're going to damn well be in there by 6 AM and you're going to fix this thing or you're outta here." Whether this guy had good reason to be mad or not, I don't know, but I wish he could have seen how ridiculous he looked, sitting there on a bench, yelling into a cell phone, while within 6 feet of him, kids were playing and mothers were sitting with babies in strollers.

Yes, cell phones are useful and no doubt, here to stay. I have one, that I need for business and it is handy, but I try not to use it too much. Because the reception and sound is often hit or miss, which I think tends to make me raise my voice when I'm talking with someone, if I'm near a pay phone, I'll use that instead.

I don't think that the problem is cell phone etiquette, but etiquette in general. Manners and accepted standards of behaviour are the lubrication that keeps people in crowded cities from fighting with each other. People don't seem to have the ability any more to put themselves in someone else's shoes and see how their own behaviour might feel if they had to put up with it.

I know that manners and etiquette might seem silly and old-fashioned to some, but I think they're essential to keeping those of us who have to spend time in crowded cities from eating each other alive.

My solution is to live in a rural place as much as possible, where it's considered impolite to not say hi to someone you pass walking on the road, whether you know them or not. If you see someone walking around here with a cell phone glued to their ear, it seems as bizarre as the occasional car alarm that goes off on city visitors cars. Think about it, a car alarm, on a small island that has 6 ferry trips off it per day?

But right now, I can't arrange my life, to be here 100% of the time and I know that for many people the necessities of work mean they have to live in the city. But the lack of manners and the fact that everyone in the city seems so on edge, just make me more and more city-phobic.

Oh yeah, and I haven't even started to talk about those pompous types with the cell phone headsets permanently attached to their heads, who when you see them from the other side appear to be crazed loonies having a conversation with invisible people ...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> I don't think that the problem is cell phone etiquette, but etiquette in general. Manners and accepted standards of behaviour are the lubrication that keeps people in crowded cities from fighting with each other. People don't seem to have the ability any more to put themselves in someone else's shoes and see how their own behaviour might feel if they had to put up with it.


You know, I have to agree with you there.

My big beef the last few years is what I like to call "boom cars", I'm sure you guys have heard them. They're these cars that drive along with so much bass in their music that you can hear them for miles. I don't mind so much when they keep travelling, but for **** sake turn down the music or shut it off when you're parked near a residential area. They seem to have no consideration for others and no common courtesy.


----------



## Kuni (Feb 4, 2003)

They'd be a lot more tolerable if everyone would follow a few simple guidelines:

1) set the phone to vibrate or off when you're in public. No-one needs to hear your ring tone. :\ (or at the very least, keep it quiet and be ready to answer it after the first ring!)

2) keep your voice down if you must use it in public! Man, the number of people who yell into those things...

3) don't take a call if you're talking to someone, whether they be a friend or a cashier or whatever...or if you must take it, excuse yourself from the conversation with "I'm sorry to be rude, but this call is urgent" or something like that, then keep it short if possible.

4) turn them off when you're in an area where you're asked to!


I know I'm a fuddy-duddy, but I try to observe these rules when I have my cell, and I think people would be a lot more tolerant of them if everyone showed the same courtesy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_Oh yeah, and I haven't even started to talk about those pompous types with the cell phone headsets permanently attached to their heads, who when you see them from the other side appear to be crazed loonies having a conversation with invisible people ..._

ummm that would be me and 

a) how does doing the correct thing which IS wearing a headset ( for a ton of reasons ) equate with "pompous".

b) my "extended small village" includes hundreds of people I've never met or seen but if they happen to stroll up via the phone I chat with them just as you would your local town citizen.

What difference is it if the "person" is invisible or not.









Just as the world is more accessible online so it is by phone as well. Handsfree answer and call puts me immediately available for chatting or help - it's productive it frees up time and lets me multi-task.

Traveling the NY State Thruway you'll see hundreds of these "pompous" types. The State has wisely mandated headset use.

Etiquette is etiquette - a loudmouth harrassing an employee in public or via cell is no different.....he's still a boor.

A cell phone is a connectivity tool, nothing more.
Use or misuse is up to the owner.....just like car radios.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Maybe someone should write the 10 Commandments of Cell Phone ettiquette.

I personally question why primary children have phones unless it's strictly for safety. But perhaps I'm a fuddy duddy stuck in the 90s.  

People should not be allowed to use cell phones while driving a motor vehicle. No, it's not the same as talking to a passenger. Plus too many people can't drive well enough as it is, they don't need the extra distraction. If they need to talk, they should pull over.

As for using them in public, as long as people are considerate about it then it's okay by me. We just are left with a bad taste in our mouths when there are people talking too loud, having what should be a private conversation in public or ignoring service staff. These people are just plain rude.

I hope the novelty of cells dies down and that their usage eventually fades into essential uses instead of pre-teen and teen fad.


----------



## Hooch (Mar 2, 2004)

Cellphones are great, but there's always a few people who need to be a bit more courteous when using them.

When I used to work at a gas station a few years ago, I always found it rude when people would walk up to the cash talking on their cellphones. I was always tempted to purposely short-change them to try and interrupt their conversations







 

I have friends who are constantly text-messaging people back and forth on their cellphones. Ugh. They don't seem to get the idea that actually _calling_ the person might get the point across a bit faster...

- Hooch


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

In New Zealand all the kids text message nonstop because it's much cheaper than actually using the phone to talk. The phone company there released a text messaging plan that was dirt cheap to encourage the use of this service and the youth culture took full advantage of it. Good on them really. It was disturbing to see so many kids with cells though.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yeah maybe pompous was the wrong choice of words, I shouldn't have tarred all headset users with the same brush. I didn't go into a lot of elaboration because I just tacked that comment on the end of a post that was already getting too long. I take it back.

I use a headset attached to my cordless phone sometimes when I know I need to be on the phone a lot and I want to have my hands free for some other work. They do have a purpose. And I might also use one with my cell, if I had one, for similar reasons.

But I'm sorry, when you see someone walking down the street, talking and gesticulating to what appears to be no one in particular, because you can't see the earpiece and mike on the other side of his head, it does look goofy. It looks exactly like a crazy person, talking to himself. I can't help but laugh when I see it.

I do think that when I see people who are out rollerblading, buying milk at the store, browsing the bookstore, etc. wearing them, when they're not even talking to anyone, it quite possibly, (but yes, maybe not always) has something to do with status, appearing cool, or saying I'm so bloody important I need to have this thing strapped to my head 25 hours a day.

Just a gut feeling on my part. But if you might ask these folks, when you see them in a movie line-up or locking up their bike at a parking metre, if they actually receive enough phone calls that they need that thing on their ear all day, I would bet, if they were honest, in most cases the answer would be no.

One of the fundamental issues that I have with cell phones in general is the way it removes people from where they are. When people are on the phone, handsfree or not, they are transported somewhere else. Even if someone is an excellent muli-tasker, their attention is fractured and part of it goes inside their own skull as they concentrate on the conversation they are having.

One of biggest problems in our modern world, IMHO, is the fact that people are contstantly distracted, oblivious to their present surroundings, with no attention spans, brains running a hundred miles an hour.

Part of the reason that I witnessed these guys yelling on their phones in public is because they had completely forgotten where they were, they were locked into the intense discussion they were having on the phone.

I believe that the danger of cell phone use in cars has not so much to do with the fact that one hand is being used to hold the phone, it's that the driver's attention becomes fractured as part it is removed from the very important and potentially dangerous task of driving. I only tried once to use my cell while driving, ironically to report a stalled car in a dangerous area that might have caused an accident, but when I finally hung up I realized that I had driven a dozen blocks on autopilot, with no memory of the intersections that I had gone sailing through. Hopefully all the lights were green.

Yeah, use your cell phone hands-free when you're working (not with power tools), sitting at your desk or doing something else where you can't hurt yourself or anyone else. Please don't parade around with them on in public and as Kuni said: "3) don't take a call if you're talking to someone, whether they be a friend or a cashier or whatever...or if you must take it, excuse yourself from the conversation with "I'm sorry to be rude, but this call is urgent" or something like that, then keep it short if possible."

Resist distraction. Stay in the moment, man.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I guess in the Gulf Islands that might work.









As to car use - that's ludricrous - pilots, truck drivers, police, rescue, couriers, military etc etc etc all use headsets and communications and one old lady is likely alive because I could get rescue to her in 5 minutes instead of 30.

Falling asleep at the wheel kills more drivers than anything remotely connected with cell phone use and I can't tell you the number of times I've been kept alert and awake chatting politics with an associate in the US during a late night drive.

If I'd had a passenger their job would have been to chat as well. No difference 'cept my US buddy needn't make me stop for him to have a quick pee.

Indeed phone use in a car without a headset is just plain stupid but there are tons of other distractions, kids are a huge one, reading directions instead of being talked in by phone, eating etc etc

It's a tool - pros use tools well, amateurs use them irresponsibly and get themselves in trouble. Don't blame the communication device.

Traffic reports, reckless drivers, hazardous conditions all get reported a hundred times an hour or more across the GTA.

Just tonight my son was high ( he's diabetic ) and I could keep him calm chatting about school etc while driving an injector over to him.
There are thousands of stories like that going on every hour around the planet. Reassurance, rescue, directions, avoidance of danger.

It's tool, used wisely or stupidly for many now it's indispensable.
Just knowing that kids can get in touch with me is so incredibly reassuring - and I can relax, do what I want and the phone is right there.

I can't sit and chat with Macspectrum as often as I like but I could relax in the hot tub and chat to him for 1/2 hour tonight - all with a headset - he's on his deck I'm on mine- you don't even know the headset is there after while.

Andy Stinton has even done away with the wire - BT all the way, last time I checked he could control his iTunes from his phone throughout the house

My guess is some tinkerer has his car wired so he says into his phone in the morning.......
"Car".....
and the car says
Yes boss
"Start"
Right away boss.....what channel on the radio ths morning boss??

You get the idea  

Get used to it.....it ain't going away.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yeah, it's great to have a cell phone for accidents -- especially when it's for the ones they cause. I've seen more near-accidents because some twit was driving while chatting on a phone; often:

</font>
driving too fast/slow</font>
swerving all over the road for no apparent reason</font>
changing lanes without looking/signal</font>
running red lights (well after the light has changed)</font>
leaving turning signal on, or using a left signal when turning right (or vice-versa)</font>
stopping in the middle of the road</font>
rear-ending another car</font>
backing up without looking (I've been almost nailed on a couple of occasions -- one of which the person looked right at me just before they backed up... duh)</font>
nearly hitting pedestrians when they have the right of way (usually making left turns)</font>
hitting a curb on a straight stretch of road</font>
missing the school bus' stop lights when kids are crossing the road </font>
... and this is just over the course of the last couple of weeks or so.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) I see that everyday cellphone or not....... tho lots of one handed dufus' as well - Tim Hortons or cell in hand.

b) how many were wearing headsets????

my guess......nary a one.

Stupidity isn't caused by tools, it CAN be compounded by them.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Reducing all distractions while driving is important.

A headset is big step up and I understand that if you're caught in slow traffic or gridlocks there's little harm. Nevertheless, I'm a purist and would prefer no use.

It sure beats neck craned to one side with a coffe in the other hand, driving with your knees.


----------



## däycüs mäximüs (Nov 30, 2002)

i guess i'm one of those guys who speak to "invisible" people as well when i'm on the road.

it's law here. someone i know got pulled over because he was talking on his cell while on the highway without the headset. you better believe he was pissed.

safety first. 

when i was younger, i ran a red light, and t-boned a lady while i was talking on the cellphone. no one was hurt, but you better believe that it was a wake-up for me.

after that, all my car accidents were non-cellphone related..


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Get used to it.....it ain't going away.*

Some might say that about neo-cons too.  

Macdoc, as I have said, I'm not completely against the use of cell phones or headsets and admitted that they have their uses. Sitting in your hot tub chatting - great - go for it. Controlling your house with your headset - fabulous. Keeping your cell in your car for emergencies - excellent use of the technology. But driving while talking on your cell phone for most people is a dangerous thing to do and there is much evidence to show this. 

While there may be some folks who can successfully partition their brains to be able to use a cell phone, hands free or not, and still drive safely, and just maybe you are one of those people, I don't believe that it is possible for most to do that. Yes, it is just a tool and while some small percentage of people might have the aptitude to use it safely, studies have shown that most don't. A skilled juggler might be able to practice throwing flaming torches in the air, drink coffee and still drive safely, but I don't believe that this means it should be made legal to do so. 

A web site set up by a woman whose car was struck by a driver distracted by a cell phone, which killed her daughter, answers many of the points you raised.


> (Q.) Talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than putting on makeup, eating fast food, tuning your radio or reading a map while driving. People need to use common sense, and we can't write laws that make that happen."
> 
> (A.) There is no question that there are many distractions occuring in the car. Of course responsible drivers should make every effort to minimize those distractions. But none of those behaviors rise to the same level of driver inattention as does dialing and then conducting a conversation or closing a business deal on a cellular phone. Human Factors experts tell us that there are basically three kinds of driving distractions. The first is visual. Looking away from the roadway would be an example of this. The second is mechanical. This would include manipulation a control -- such as dialing a cellular phone or adjusting a radio, and can often be associated with a visual distraction. The third is cognitive. By example, we have all had the experience of traveling from point A to point B and then realizing that we aren't sure how we got there or what happened in between. Being "lost in thought" or being in focused conversation with someone causes us to withdraw from situational awareness. Researchers are beginning to obtain evidence that shifting from hand held to hands-free phone use while driving does not result in eliminating all cell phone distractions. It addresses the visual and mechancial distractions, but does not address the cognitive issues. This raises the question, "How is conversing on a phone different from talking with a passenger in the vehicle?" There are two important differences. The first is that a passenger in a vehicle is aware of the driving situation and can even serve as an additional look-out for hazards. If there is a needed pause in conversation, the reasons are evident to all parties. The second is that phone use seems to carry a certain obligation of immediacy. When the phone rings, we feel compelled to answer it -- whether it is convenient, safe, or appropriate to do so or not. We become focused on the phone call and lose the situational awareness so necessary for safe driving. (Fran Bents, co-author of the Department of Transportation's 1997 report entitled "An Investigation of Wireless Communications in Vehicles," in her March 7, 2000 testimony before the Senate Transportation Committee in Pennsylvania.) Of all the distractions mentioned, only the use of a cell phone incorporates all three of those demands. The sheer magnitude of cell phone usage also differentiates these behaviors. There are currently 88 million cell phone users in this country alone. There are 40,000 new subscribers every day. That rate of subscribership exceeds the birth rate. A Prevention Magazine survey in 1995 reported that 85% of cell phone owners use their phones while driving at least some of the time. If such statistics hold true, there are now about 75 million drivers talking on their phones while driving. In addition to this, there are currently services available that allow us to check e-mail and stocks, send faxes, and surf the web, all from our cell phones. Industry plans to broadly expand the availability of a multitude of in-vehicle communications devices for e-mail, Internet communications, and electronic navigation...are gaining momentum. We know that as a society we can provide the means to keep in touch with family and friends, conduct business deals, entertain ourselves, or order a carry out dinner while driving our cars, but the important question that has not been adequately addressed is should we?*


And as far as the contention that some how a head set makes driving safer, I found this newspaper story that refutes that. Hands free cell phones are not safer (free registration required)



> Forcing drivers to use no-hands cell-phone technology will not likely improve roadway attention, even though it allows drivers to keep both hands free, said Scott Falb, a driver-safety specialist at the state Department of Transportation.
> 
> "Serious and in-depth conversations on the phone really degrade your ability to do good driving," he said. "High traffic and technical conversations are the worst mix."


And from the same story:


> But it's the conversation - not the interface - that makes cell-phone chat behind the wheel dangerous, Falb said. Studies have found the cognitive abilities of motorists decline or worsen when the brain is multitasking, he said.


Drive now, talk later.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I strongly second that motion.

Or at least write into law that if a cell phone user crashes into me or someone I love I can, by law, insert their phone forcefully into their rectum.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

And still more evidence: A Wired News article.


> The personal crusade of a New York legislator who drafted the bill that restricts drivers from using their cell phones in the car -- and which became law on Thursday -- is far from over.
> 
> Felix Ortiz, the Brooklyn assemblyman who wrote the bill, says he will push for a law that prohibits even hands-free cellular systems in the car.
> 
> Under the law to be made official by Gov. George Pataki on Thursday, New York motorists caught talking on a cell phone while driving will receive a fine of up to $100 starting in December. Drivers who use their cell phones to make an emergency 911 call, talk on a CB radio or use a hands-free setup are excused.


Same article:


> While the cell-phone industry vehemently disagrees with an outright ban of wireless devices in the car, some scientists agree with Ortiz that using a headset can be just as dangerous as talking with a phone in hand.
> 
> Whenever lawmakers such as those in New York introduce bills to prohibit the use of a handheld cell phone while driving, they almost always cite a 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The article, written by University of Toronto medicine professor Don Redelmeier, shows that talking on the phone while driving quadruples a driver's chance for a car crash.
> 
> ...


And another article: Driving With Distractions


> Many people have done studies on hands-free headsets, and they found that it is not any safer than hand held cell phones. Using a hands-free cell phone while driving still interferes with the ability to maneuver a vehicle safely, according to several new tests. In 2001, David L. Strayer of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and his colleagues reported that people talking on either hand-held or hands-free cell phones during simulated driving test, ran red lights more often and reacted more slowly to traffic signals than when not talking on a phone. No such problems occurred for drivers who either talked with a passenger or listened to the radio or to books on tape.
> 
> In new investigations led by Strayer, 110 college students operating a driving simulator caused more rear-end collisions and reacted more slowly to vehicles braking in front of them during periods when they talked on a hands free cell phone. The worst impairments occurred while driving in heavy traffic, the researchers report in the March Journal of Experimental Psychology: applied, cell-phone conversations restricted the attention required to notice important driving cues, Strayer holds. For instance, immediately after taking simulated drives past a series of billboards, volunteers could recall fewer of the signs if they had been talking on a hands-free cell phone. Yet eye-tracking tests showed that drivers looked directly at two-thirds of the billboards, whether or not they used a cell phone.
> 
> The results of these tests would leave many people to believe that the laws that just require people to use hand-free headsets are not effective. Many people state that “if there is going to be a ban on cell phone it should be on hand-held and hand-free.”


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Doc: I can safely say that the incidents involved people were using hands-free cell phones was just under half -- 35%-45%, easily.

If you believe the onus is totally on the person, not the tool, you're dreaming in colour. Simply _talking_ to a person, turning a dial on the console, or adjusting a mirror can cause an accident.

It's been scientifically proven that conversations on cell phones, regardless of hands-free or not, _draws significant mental resources away from the driving task, and in ways that passengers and car radios do not.*_


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Strange how pilots, emergency,staff, etc manage to survive at all.









Sorry - using a tool responsibly whether it's phone or vehicle is at the heart of the matter - you won't legislate that.
I and others freely tell people we are talking to to "hang on a minute" if a traffic situation arises.



> * Data linking car wrecks to cell phone calls are scarce.* But tales of near-misses and spectacular wrecks have sparked calls for new legislation in 20 states.


Ever driven behind the dufus trying to read directions as he's looking for a place.

http://www.cellmanners.com/index2.htm 



> Welcome to CellManners.com, a site devoted to promoting civility between cell phone users and the people around them.
> 
> *"New technologies require new rules, and even a new set of manners."*
> 
> ...


••••••

_hands-free cell phones was just under half -- 35%-45%, easily.
_

If you could tell someone was on a handsfree in a difficult traffic situation then you're paying way too much attention to them and not enough to traffic.
Wearing a headset doesn't mean you're on it.
Andy's headset you couldn't possibly see
Handsfree vehicle rigs are invisible.
Your "observation" is a real stretch in my mind.

How do you think pilots and emergency staff cope?
Sometimes in incredibly tense situations requiring split second decisions AND communicating.?

You don't and can't legislate responsibility. 

[ September 29, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> If you could tell someone was on a handsfree in a difficult traffic situation then you're paying way too much attention to them and not enough to traffic.


Please, you're going to have to do better than that.









You assume I was driving. I wasn't -- riding the bus offers one to witness a lot of things on the way to and from work. You also assume that it's difficult to see someone driving with those ridiculous looking headsets and ear pieces. Guess what -- they're not. Every one of those situations I quoted were either walking along the sidewalk, or riding the bus.

As far as your comment regarding "professionals" using headsets (pilots, military, et al) -- there's a difference between constant chatter than sporadic information fed to a person. 

Pilots have significantly less traffic to worry about, and emergency staff don't "chatter" as much as a lot of civilians do. Not to mention usually have a partner to help with the details.  

Nice try though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_ those ridiculous looking headsets and ear pieces_ 

I guess that sets the stage for informed commentary  

many of us spend hundreds of dollars getting the right set of communication tools for the work we do and the lifestyle we have......and most don't do it for "looks".
It's to be effective.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I think that the evidence is definitely in that cell phones distract drivers and make driving more dangerous.

There may very well be some talented people who have enough spare brain capacity to devote complete attention to driving while also carrying on various conversations on the phone, but I seriously doubt that includes most of us. Maybe Macdoc has that kind of brain, he seems to be claiming this, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Unless I'm misinterpreting his argument, he doesn't seem to be claiming that cell phones are not a distraction, just one that he feels he can handle safely.

He says that this is like aircraft pilots, emergency drivers etc. I don't personally think that *most* people pay enough attention to their driving, even without a cellphone there to distract them. Therefore I would say that most of us, shouldn't use cell phones, hands free or not, when driving.

I would support legislation that banned this activity and then for those who can prove through training and testing, just like pilots and emergency drivers, that they can deal with the added distraction of cell phone use, that they be given a special class of license that allows this. Then I'll feel safer when I'm out on the road, as a driver, pedestrian or cyclist, that when I see that handset of headset on the drivers ear, that he knows what he's doing.

Right now, I can't say that I feel too safe and have witnessed two close calls this year with cell phone using drivers that have scared the crap out of me.

One guy came within a couple of feet of T-boning me, as he ran a red light, cell phone glued to ear, at least 3 or 4 seconds after all the other traffic had stopped at the light.

The other guy swerved around me on my bike, cell phone glued to ear, and then cut me off as he made a right turn in front of me, forcing me to brake hard, to avoid becoming a stain on his shiny muscle car.

I don't trust those bozos to make the decision for themselves whether they can be allowed to use a cell phone while driving. They have clearly overestimated their own abilities. We need more than cell phone "etiquette" to keep people like that from being menaces.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

MacDoc your reply to how the headsets look is justified; however, you do not address the other charges in Manny's post. I guess he was correct or you've agreed to disagree on the other matters.

I'd rather see a headset than a neck craned to a cell phone. The latter is just plain stupid.

As much as I'd rather never see drivers with cell phones, I have to agree with MacDoc that this is an issue of personal responsibility. If there's to be a legal regulation or charge involved, it would have to be under a certain set of circumstances like driving conditions, no headset, and so on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A cop watching a careless one handed turn ( notice the "glued to the head" refrain ) can and will charge the driver.
Eating, loud music, kids running amok all can attract a ticket.

NOTHING is more distracting than a tailgater especially in stop and go......so judgement says leave room for you and the dufus behind.

You CAN'T legislate judgement and responsibility. You CAN legislate the consequences of being stupid whether, eating, talking or driving poorly.

A phone or a car is a tool.
A car radio may have saved a drivers life but no elses. It also likely caused a ton of accidents.
Cell phones save lives, let traffic run smoothly due to reports, help cops catch idiots..........and likely cause accidents from time to time just like any other "distraction".



> A study of North Carolina crash data by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center concluded that cell phones ranked eighth in a list of distractions that caused crashes, below activities such as adjusting the radio or eating and drinking.


There are drivers that shouldn't be on the road period and drivers that shouldn't use cells on the road.

as to handsfree



> The world's largest automaker released a study Wednesday that examined data from 8.1 million phone calls between October 1996 and May 2000. The results from GM--one of the largest providers of on-board, hands-free cell phone services--starkly contradict a wealth of academic research on driver distraction, including a report issued last week saying all cell phone use poses a driving hazard.
> 
> *GM researchers found that, out of 8.1 million calls in nearly four years, users of GM's hands-free cell phone services crashed only two times. Furthermore, researchers found "no evidence" that the phone played a role in the crashes. GM executives say their study is the most comprehensive analysis of actual--not simulated or estimated*--data in the world.
> 
> "We've seen a lot of research that has come out lately, saying there is no difference between hands-free and other cell phones," said Chet Huber, president of GM's satellite communications subsidiary OnStar. "This finding would say there's probably a significant difference...and *the embedded cell phone is significantly safer."*


That reflects my experience as well..trying to keep a hand held phone in position and trying to drive is like trying to feed a baby a bottle and trying to drive. Incredibly distracting.

Real cars, real users, long study, not guesses - real verifiable data....what can never be shown is the positive benefits those 8 million + calls engendered.

I report accidents, debris on the road, stranded motorists all the time. I say OPP to my phone there they are, I think I know the dispatchers by now.
Next to hands free voice dial is the very next safety item.

Good tools, good judgement = benefits.

Poor judgement in choice of tools AND use = problems.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> The results from GM--one of the largest providers of on-board, hands-free cell phone services--*starkly contradict a wealth of academic research on driver distraction*, including a report issued last week saying all cell phone use poses a driving hazard.


Doesn't sound like reliable info to me. Good ol' honest GM?

Sort of like asking the tobacco makers if smoking is harmful.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

You know we have speed limits, because most of us can't drive 200 kph in traffic safely. Maybe there's a few Indy drivers who could, with really good cars.

I'd rather deprive the Indy drivers of their fun and make it safe for all of us by making the speed limit 50 kph, something most people can handle.

We can't have cops everywhere all the time making sure people use their cell phones appropriately. We can enact DWY laws, (driving while yakking) to reduce the incidence of people who can't handle the distraction, but think they can, endangering the rest of us.

For those of you who really need to use your cell phone, in a non-emergency situation, while you're in your car, pull over.

I've pretty much made every point I think I can make on this subject. This will probably be my final post on this thread, unless I can think of some other way to state my position.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And you ignore entirely the positive aspects for something you THINK is a major issue.









GMs OnStar calls are all logged and it would be seriously stupid for them to spin data to little purpose.
GM's Onstar would be the ONLY source for this kind of extended "real life" data mining of in vehicle calls versus accidents.
The data is only incidental to the Onstar service for which GM has been lauded.

It's like so many seem to THINK crime is on the rise everywhere and they dismiss information that clearly shows otherwise. 

50 mph!!! - European major highways typically move at 160+ KM per hour and the rule is - drive responsibly and move over from the left lane.

You WILL get nicked for
a) not moving over
b) driving too slowly and interefering with traffic

You WON'T get nicked for driving fast responsibly.

You can't legislate responsibility.


----------



## Tara (Aug 17, 2004)

I usually don't drive, but a couple of times when I did, I talked on my cell *phone*, craned neck and all. It's easy enough to have a headset when you have your own car that is the one you almost always drive. I don't have a headset though. I felt like I was doing it as responsibly as possible, but a big part of that was being hyper aware that I was doing something potentially dangerous. It makes sense that as it becomes habit, you don't think about it as much. Like if you tune the radio all the time.

On the other hand, it's not such a bad thing to make talking on the phone illegal, though it may be hard to enforce from outside. If you have a thing where the phone sits in your car and is connected to a speaker, so you talk without a headset. The person could just be talking to themself or singing to themself (I can't be the only one that does it!) 

If it had been illegal, I would have pulled over and called, if I decided the call was really important. I think maybe the main problem is our impatience and our constant feeling of being pressed by time, use every minute, don't waste any time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Before I retired in 2001, I had a mobile phone and/or cell phone with hands free operation of one type or another since 1987.

I used to drive 60,000 km a year and used the phone to great advantage to get things done between destinations. (Like between Edmonton and Fort McMurray, 450 km, for example.)

Today I have a tiny head set that I wear while driving attached to the tiny cell phone on my belt. I sometimes forget I am even wearing it, until I sit down at my neighbourhood pub and the guys tease me about my "taxi dispatcher" job.

There is one thing that bothers me about cell phone use in moving vehicles though.

I will admit to talking on the phone and after the call realizing that I have passed a town, or intersection, or school zone on a highway that usually serves as some type of progress "marker" on those long highway drives. I don't even remember passing that point. (This happened many times in the 90's)

And THAT scares the hell out of me. If a call takes my mind off the road to that degree, never mind even for a moment, head set or not, cell phones should be banned in a moving vehicle.

If you head set users out there are honest with yourselves, you have very likely experienced the same thing, haven't you?

Cheers


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

MacDoc, don't go to New Zealand. They are a country of terrible tailgaters. However, from what I learned it's the speeding on windy narrow roads that kills more of them. 

I had a video of how extreme the tailgating can get but sadly I lost it when my HD crashed. Tailgaters here can't compare (at least from what I've experienced in B.C., Alberta, Washington, Nevada, Oregon and California). Sure, rush hour into L.A. is its own special type of scary madness. Nevertheless, tailgating makes no sense in NZ with its fairly desolate roads. Maybe the locals just get lonely.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

LA bugged me for tailgating especially on Mulholland Drive. I mean like where they gonna go anyway









•••••••



> will admit to talking on the phone and after the call realizing that I have passed a town, or intersection, or school zone on a highway that usually serves as some type of progress "marker" on those long highway drives. I don't even remember passing that point. (This happened many times in the 90's)


Sinc that's just your subconsious at work and it's certainly NOT limited to talking on the phone.
I've had it happen with talk radio and especially with talking books



> What we call "highway hypnosis" is a natural hypnotic state. You drive somewhere and don't even remember seeing the usual landmarks. You are on automatic pilot. The natural hypnotic state also exists when you become so involved in a book, TV show


It gets tangled up with being sleepy or dozing off while driving.
It's very similar to the "suspension of disbelief" that occurs when you get engaged in a movie or book or conversation.

Everyone knows the first drive to a new job or cottage seems to take a long time yet when it become "routine" it's as if no time as passed.



> Have you ever been driving on the interstate and found yourself in your own world for a little while, "spaced out", not even noticing the last exits you passed? It's as if you somehow drifted from your concentration on the task of driving and moved into your inner mind. You may have been daydreaming or pondering a problem or just 'floating along' with the music on the radio. And yet, you were still driving safely and, if the brake lights of the car in front of you had come on, you would have snapped to alertness. *Congratulations! You have just had an experience of the subconscious mind. *As a matter of fact, you have just been in a light state of hypnosis.
> 
> ol of the conscious mind so that you allowed the subconscious into your awareness. You might have been imagining pleasant possibilities (daydreaming) or unpleasant ones (worrying), or perhaps a new thought or creative inspiration came to mind. But who was driving the car? *You were actually on 'automatic pilot' through another part of your subconscious, the part that holds your habits. Since driving is a habitual action for which you are well-trained, you really don't have to think about it consciously unless something unusual is happening.* And you naturally came back to full conscious awareness as soon as you realized that you might miss your exit or needed to pay attention to anything else.


Awareness and alertness and affectiveness can actually be heightened.
That aspect is part of training as well.
As a pilot you are trained in take off and landing to react quickly without even thinking about it.
You are "concentrating" on the takeoff and if something unusual occurs training takes over and your hands know just what to do, so does your body.
Ever tried "thinking" about riding a bicycle.









It's not the same as driver fatigue where your head is nodding and your eyes close briefly.
Any long distance driver has experienced that and the ONLY safe thing is to pull over and take a power nap.



> When you drive a go-kart or a racecar fast or quickly make business decisions, your subconscious and intuitive mind has to be actively engaged, and the faster you go the more engaged it has to be. That’s because *our analytical conscious mind cannot process information quickly enough, nor does it directly control muscles or other body senses. This is the function of the subconscious and intuitive mind (which processes information 2 million times faster than the analytical mind).* It's the subconscious that has the direct connection to the senses and muscles of the body. [/b]It’s the subconscious that is driving[/b] the kart. The fastest drivers and best business performers out there are *those who use their analytical mind in a way that optimizes the operation of the subconscious intuitive mind*.


Fatigue/sleepiness is the killer. 
The miles slipping by without you noticing just means you're relaxed and letting your subconscious do it's job effectively.

Chatting on the phone or in vehicle, talk radio, talking books all keep sleepiness at bay and let your subconscious driver skills and training function well.

Music or just enduring road noise doesn't in my experience


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

> MacDoc, don't go to New Zealand. They are a country of terrible tailgaters. However, from what I learned it's the speeding on windy narrow roads that kills more of them.


What is up with that anyway? Driving with my cousins scares the crap out of me and they can't figure out why the high death rate! And what's with the passing on the shoulder?

I use my cellphone in the car only with a headset or handsfree speaker. My phone is set to answer after two rings and I use voice dial so I do not need to touch it. When I've not had handsfree, I've pulled over (which is risky on busy roads as well) and the only people I've seen who have been horrible cellphone users while driving have not had a headset on. Those people I want to yell out to "either drive or talk - not both!" but from my personal experience in distraction what I find the most distracting is my iPod and GPS. I'm watching the arrows on my GPS (which I mount up on the dash so I can still look out the window) and scrolling around on my iPod - those are dangerous.

A long time ago when I was in school, someone rear ended me bad - I was stopped and he hit me at about 40 kph - he was messing with his car radio (I saw him doing so before he hit me).

I also work closely with EMS (the Ambulance guys) and they have A LOT going on in that ambulance - they have their dispatch radios, their local radio/cellphones, their GPS nav from the dispatch and sometimes other computers - all at once! They do this all while driving fast and dealing with their patients - this is why I am careful when recommending more systems to put in their ambulances.

Just my experiences.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_My phone is set to answer after two rings and I use voice dial so I do not need to touch it. _

Exactly the set up I have.
One reason the Onstar system is likely so safe is the operator does the dialing and looking up of information for you.

I won't have a GPS in the vehicle - too distracting - I find anything involving reading directions is tough and I pull over.
Ideally I call just before I arrive ( I put the number in the phone at a stoplight or before I leave and just hit the redial button ) and have the person talk me in.
The phone is mounted right beside the radio and high so hitting a single button is no different than turning my cruise control on.

I do get real gnarly if my Timeport has to go in for service. Talk about lost









Just like getting settled in to fly having instruments etc in the right place and knowing how to use them, makes for a safe flight or a safe driving journey.

OnStar is certainly the safest system by far followed by auto answer/voice dial/headset.

Handheld anything IS dangerous.

OnStar is brilliant and I can see the day when it will be mandatory in all vehicles the benefits are so enormous.
From theft, to accident alert to safe direction finding the list goes on and on.

It's also an incredibly good use of technology and personal service. NOTHING beats a human voice on the other end interpreting your needs.

It's a brilliant blend of human communication benefits and technology to link someone sitting in front of a screen who can look up anything you want in a few moments, monitor your vehicle whereabouts and safety all for a few dollars a month.

So an Onstar style service person could be sitting "working" with a bevy of clients and be OnCall for themwhere ever they might be.

The ultimate personal valet.

I'd love to see the technology branch out of "Big corporate" so that individuals and small teams could provide "personalized knowledge" on a true client basis to those on the road.

To some extent that's part of the service I and staff provide - when a client calls and I'm on the road I'm walking them through a problem - just the concept is inverted. They don't need to have an onsite tech, just quickly available. I've counted 4 times now on the road diagnosing an unplugged keyboard in about 1 minute of conversation.

I'd certainly pay $2-5 a day to have an OnCall assistant available one touch in the car.
It would be terrific work for shut ins or disabled who could work from home yet support a variety of mobile clientele who they get the know .......that's a key I think to the next stage.

So I could say "Please call my daughter's school" and the dedicated assistant would KNOW without explanation.
They can see where I am ( tracking), have the school number in my profile etc

I think this will spread so even things like remote tire sensing for trucks, vehicle breakdowns etc will all be tracked that way.



> OnStar's success so far can be measured by the sheer number of subscribers. At the end of 1997, there were only 1100 subscribers. Today, approximately 2.5 million subscribers use OnStar, and *several thousand new users sign up each day.* User statistics also capture the breadth of OnStar's reach. For instance, each month subscribers initiate about 700 airbag deployment notifications, some 500 stolen-vehicle requests, around 5000 emergency button presses, approximately 14,000 remote-diagnostic requests, 13,000 roadside assistance calls, 27,000 remote door-unlock requests, and 220,000 route support calls.


In my mind it's incredibly good blend of human and technology interaction and I can envision a number of service levels.

There's nothing preventing Canadians in areas with poor job opportunities and in rural locations ( with high speed ) remotely aiding the over worked GTA types and sharing a bit of the wealth in the process.

Just like the security of a back up on your computer , a live human with an eye on your travel and instantly available is a real good blanket


----------

