Is the Barry Administration going to Ban Conversations in Cars?

[SpidermanTuba]

With one arm around my date I can promise you that my attention was split between her and the driving.

And if your date saw an approaching road hazard, what did she do? Not flinch one bit? In no way alert you to its presence?


Should we make driving laws based on your particular individual experience, or on 1st on common sense and when that fails, science ?


If you actually find smoking or drinking coffee or putting your arm around your date just as distracting as talking on a cell phone while driving - I would seriously recommend you refrain from all the mentioned activities. Most people can smoke and drive just fine, but if it distracts you in particular that much you ought stop.

 

[SFC Ollie]

With one arm around my date I can promise you that my attention was split between her and the driving.

And if your date saw an approaching road hazard, what did she do? Not flinch one bit? In no way alert you to its presence?


Should we make driving laws based on your particular individual experience, or on 1st on common sense and when that fails, science ?


If you actually find smoking or drinking coffee or putting your arm around your date just as distracting as talking on a cell phone while driving - I would seriously recommend you refrain from all the mentioned activities. Most people can smoke and drive just fine, but if it distracts you in particular that much you ought stop.

I suppose we should have a separate drivers compartment, completely sealed off from all other sections of the vehicle. That way there can be nothing but the r o a d `n o i zzzzzzzz

 

[Liability]

There is NO Way that a Blue Tooth in my Ear is ANYMORE Distracting than a Person next to me or behind me in the Car.

That's your personal opinion, science says otherwise. * * * *

Bull fucking shit.

No actual "science" says anything of the sort.

You DO have to be retarded to buy that nonsense.

 

[Immanuel]

I must be tired. Because when I read the title of this thread an hour or so ago, I could have sworn it was, "Is the Barry Administration going to Ban Conservatives in Cars?" and then I couldn't figure out how the connection was made between conservatives and texting.

I don't know if they will ban conversations in cars, but, I would not be surprised if they banned conservative conversations in cars or at least try to.

Immie

 

[Father Time]

I'm confused you're upset that they want to ban cell phone use while driving?

It seems most states are doing it anyway so what difference does it make?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Once a month it seems that the Obama Administration does something really really stupid. I wonder if it happens when they are "administrating"?

 

[Liability]

I'm confused you're upset that they want to ban cell phone use while driving?

It seems most states are doing it anyway so what difference does it make?

No; they are not. They are banning hand-held cell phone use. That actually does make some sense.

What the OP was discussiing was the prospect of having the nanny state Federal Government somehow pass some laws and regulations preventing all drivers in all of the States from talking on BlueTooth or similar HANDS-FREE cellphone devices.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There is NO Way that a Blue Tooth in my Ear is ANYMORE Distracting than a Person next to me or behind me in the Car.

That's your personal opinion, science says otherwise. * * * *

Bull fucking shit.

No actual "science" says anything of the sort.

It does so right here:

http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/publications/passenger.pdf

You DO have to be retarded to buy that nonsense.

You haven't even read it, so I don't see how you'd even know. Like the rest of the anti-science crowd, you don't actually even know what science is because you don't read science. You merely read media reports about it, sit back in your armchair, and decree what is good science and what isn't based on your feelings. You are too good and too smart and righteous to actually be bothered with reading anything scientific - your all knowing gut feeling is all we need.



Please, by all means, point out the specific fundamental flaws in the above linked study. Ohh, but I guess you can't - because you can't read? Or are you just lazy?

 

[uscitizen]

Fact is that many people can drive just fine with one hand, We've been doing it all our lives. One arm around our date. One hand smoking a cigarette, One hand adjusting the radio/tape/CD player. One hand on the CB Microphone. One hand drinking a cup of coffee. So now one hand holding a cell phone. I just do not see the difference.

Two hands , two ears only one brain.
Well some only have half a brain it seems.
Perhaps it is from giving others too many pieces of their mind?

 

[Zander]

Driving?? you fucks still think you're gonna be able to own cars?? Keep elected Nanny State liberals - you'll be living in a pod with a wire coming out your ass......

 

[uscitizen]

Haven't you heard? We have all gone wireless now.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm confused you're upset that they want to ban cell phone use while driving?

It seems most states are doing it anyway so what difference does it make?

No; they are not. They are banning hand-held cell phone use. That actually does make some sense.

Considering the vast majority of scientific research on the issue indicates hand held cell phone use is equally as distracting as hands free, no, that does not make common sense. That would be like banning driving under the influence of liquor but not under the influence of beer or wine.


The issue isn't that your hand is distracted - its that your mind is distracted.

What the OP was discussiing was the prospect of having the nanny state Federal Government somehow pass some laws and regulations preventing all drivers in all of the States from talking on BlueTooth or similar HANDS-FREE cellphone devices.

That's an excellent idea, considering both are equally as dangerous. People who have one arm are allowed to drive (though I assume they aren't allowed manuals?). The issue isn't the number of arms, its your head.


Practically every time I encounter a driver doing something idiotic they are on a cell phone. I'm fine with it being banned everywhere. Talking on your phone while driving is one of the most idiotic things possible. If its that fing important pull over.


sorry folks but driving is a privilege not a right. If you've got a problem with that petition your local government for better public transportation and bike paths. When you are driving a car you are in control of an enormous amount of kinetic energy that could very easily kill people. And it does every day.

Do you seriously think we should just let people drive how they please? Any speed limit. as drunk as you like. No seat belts, no turn signals ever. Cell phones, TV's, and all the cocaine you can snort. Why not? You know what's safe, right, you're the driver!

One day someone realized cars were starting to go really fast and the statistics revealed lots of people were dying because of it.

So they made speed limits.

One day someone had the idea of safety belts, and the statistics eventually revealed their enormous life saving potential. Thousands upon thousands of families got to go pick their loved ones up in one piece from accident sites or hospitals - instead of morgues - as a result.

One day someone figured out statistics revealed driving while drunk killed lots and lots of people. So they banned it. Maybe MADD went a little to far - but its hard to argue the harm done by having a slightly too strict DUI law is greater than the harm that would be done by having none at all.


Now people are starting to figure out that driving on cell phones kills. The statistics bear this out, but none of you fools care. That's fine - when they passed DUI laws, none of the drunks on the road cared. First they got tickets then they got jail. Now you're a moron if you drive drunk and deserve the jail you get, and thousands upon thousands of families get to see their loved one come home unharmed as a result.


One day driving while talking on a cell phone will get you a stiff fine - everywhere. Why? Because its MORONIC. So get used to the idea. Sorry if you lose sleep over all the people who don't end up dead because of it.


Should there be exceptions? Yes, one. If you can show the officer the call you were making was a 911 call.

 

[Liability]

SpidermanBooba

The issue is YOUR head, dude.

Your "link" to the Utah "study" you offered, above, is busted.

The actual link is: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/HFES2004-000597-1.pdf

If you want to share things, try doing it correctly, stupid.

And the fact that you "buy" that horse-hockey doesn't make it so.

Are you aware of contrary studies? Or are you one of the ones who would dismiss the contary data merely because you don't care for the source?

Can you tell us all about the research methodology for the psychological study?

What of its validity in terms of rigorous scientific investigation?

You read some bullshit off the interwebz, and your jellified liberoidal brain pre-determines what you will accept or reject.

You are devoid of logic.

 

[uscitizen]

 

[Zander]

I'm confused you're upset that they want to ban cell phone use while driving?

It seems most states are doing it anyway so what difference does it make?

No; they are not. They are banning hand-held cell phone use. That actually does make some sense.

Considering the vast majority of scientific research on the issue indicates hand held cell phone use is equally as distracting as hands free, no, that does not make common sense. That would be like banning driving under the influence of liquor but not under the influence of beer or wine.


The issue isn't that your hand is distracted - its that your mind is distracted.

What the OP was discussiing was the prospect of having the nanny state Federal Government somehow pass some laws and regulations preventing all drivers in all of the States from talking on BlueTooth or similar HANDS-FREE cellphone devices.

That's an excellent idea, considering both are equally as dangerous. People who have one arm are allowed to drive (though I assume they aren't allowed manuals?). The issue isn't the number of arms, its your head.


Practically every time I encounter a driver doing something idiotic they are on a cell phone. I'm fine with it being banned everywhere. Talking on your phone while driving is one of the most idiotic things possible. If its that fing important pull over.

You're right of course. Driving a moving vehicle is a dangerous thing, PERIOD. We should have the government take over all human transportation. That is really the only SAFE Thing to do. Need to go to work? Apply for government transportation in an approved government conveyance. Please submit all requests in writing at least 7 weeks in advance of your human transportation requirements. Need to go to the dentist at lunch and it is too far to walk or ride a bicycle (Note: if you choose to ride a bike you will be required to wear government approved safety gear and pass a proficiency test!) ? Don't fret, just submit government form OU812 in triplicate seven weeks prior to your appointment. Need some lemons from the store? Walk like an ecologically conscious person or Grow a lemon tree! Note: Growing lemons trees is illegal unless the you have paid the proper agricultural fees and submitting the proper government forms! Yes, we need more Government, more regulations. People are just too stupid. It is for their own good......

 

[SpidermanTuba]

SpidermanBooba

The issue is YOUR head, dude.

Your "link" to the Utah "study" you offered, above, is busted.

The actual link is: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/HFES2004-000597-1.pdf

If you want to share things, try doing it correctly, stupid.

Are you seriously this dumb?

First off, my links work, I just checked them.

http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/publications/passenger.pdf

Second off, I link to the actual preprint of the 9 page paper titled "Passenger and cell-phone conversations in simulated driving", later published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. (If you want the actual published journal article you'll have to pay or otherwise have access through a university library for instance)

YOU link to an 3 page entry in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting with the same title "Passenger and cell-phone conversations in simulated driving". What does "proceedings" mean? It means its a summary of a talk given at a scientific conference or meeting. What you have linked is merely a brief summary of the talk given ABOUT the paper that I linked.


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

Are you aware of contrary studies?

Obviously you aren't otherwise you'd have them linked up.

Can you tell us all about the research methodology for the psychological study?

I don't have to you imbecile. Go to the above link. Page 4. Begin at the section titled "Method". Seriously, are you fucking retarded?

What of its validity in terms of rigorous scientific investigation?

Do you think that coming up with increasingly more and more vague questions will somehow hide the fact you don't know what you're talking about?

You read some bullshit off the interwebz, and your jellified liberoidal brain pre-determines what you will accept or reject.

Its published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Where do you get your science? FOX News?

You are devoid of logic.

You are a poser.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You're right of course. Driving a moving vehicle is a dangerous thing, PERIOD.

Well in that case, I guess we either have to allow anyone to drive anyway they want, as fast as they want, as drunk as they want - OR - put chips in everyone's head to have the government control every thought they have while driving. Because that's the simple choice that idiots can understand. We wouldn't want to do anything complicated like use science and statistics to figure out which factors severely impair someone's ability to drive and weed those out from the factors that have negligible impact.

We should have the government take over all human transportation.

I'm pretty sure that's already happened unless you walk your ass to work. That road you drive on to get to work? Who built that? G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T Who puts air marshals on planes? G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T The last time big transportation was done without government was when the railroad tycoons were buying up land and laying their own private rail lines. You don't like government in transportation? here's a clue - save your money, get a loan, buy a bunch of land, and lay a big private highway and charge people to use it! Because guess what? ROADS DON'T BUILD THEMSELVES. If government isn't going to do it Carlos Slim will have to.

(Note: if you choose to ride a bike you will be required to wear government approved safety gear and pass a proficiency test!)

I have a dear friend who is alive today because government made his irresponsible 20 year old ass wear a helmet on his motor bike. He wound up in a coma for 6 months anyway, and still owes 0.75 million dollars in medical bills 15 years later - but had he not had a helmet his brains would be mush and he'd be stone cold dead.

 

[Liability]

SpidermanBooba

The issue is YOUR head, dude.

Your "link" to the Utah "study" you offered, above, is busted.

The actual link is: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/HFES2004-000597-1.pdf

If you want to share things, try doing it correctly, stupid.

Are you seriously this dumb?

First off, my links work, I just checked them.

Your link was busted, and it still is; so I went to dig up what I could. Yes, it was an article from the proceedings, but it captured the essence of the "study" from the authors themselves, so who the fuck do you imagine you are fooling, dude?

A psychological study using 96 people of various ages using a simulator...

The "controls" for this one are pretty laughable and to draw, as the authors noetheless manage to do, any generalized "findings" is even more laughable.

There ARE, by contrast, some actually scientific studies (not this psychology crap) which do tend to support your viewpoint.

But YOU, being the arrogant tool but intellectual lightweight that you are, didn't even bother to refer to anything approximating actual science.

The studies (including that nonsense you are getting a woody over) seem to indicate that the processing of information in conversations (listening as well as preparing to speak) occupy a significant part of the mind's ability to engage in other activity (like driving).

The "logic" thus would require the nanny state to ban all talking in cars. And radios? Please. They clearly have to go (especially TALK RADIO since active listening to conversation will undoubtedly again be found to occupy more of the mind's processing ability than background music will). And there we are.

Any reason to shut down TALK RADIO is clearly a thing to be prized by the Statists in our present Government.

Your contention is on the flaccid side. Your notion of "debate" is pretty limp, too.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Your link was busted, and it still is; so I went to dig up what I could. Yes, it was an article from the proceedings, but it captured the essence of the "study" from the authors themselves, so who the fuck do you imagine you are fooling, dude?

Why capture the essence of the study when you could have the actual study?

A psychological study using 96 people of various ages using a simulator...

Versus your study involving one person - YOU.

The "controls" for this one are pretty laughable and to draw,

What makes them laughable? Do you even know? Or are you just babbling?

as the authors noetheless manage to do, any generalized "findings" is even more laughable.

Do you think putting quotations around your words absolves you from having to provide actual evidence to your claim?

There ARE, by contrast, some actually scientific studies (not this psychology crap) which do tend to support your viewpoint.

Imagine that - studies from different fields supporting the same conclusions.

But YOU, being the arrogant tool but intellectual lightweight that you are, didn't even bother to refer to anything approximating actual science.

I anxiously await your referral to actual science.

 

[mal]

Now, are Passenger's Distracting at all?...

If you Agree that they are, then the Premise of Expanding Regulations BEYOND Banning Cells in Cars is Perfectly Valid.



peace...

The science doesn't support passengers as being a significant distraction.

I know for a fact my wife drives better with me riding shotgun, doesn't matter if we're conversing or not.

That's Special...

Do you Drive Better when she's Shotgun, or is this a Female Issue in your Opinion?...



peace...