Rod Speed wrote:


"F Murtz" wrote in message
eb.com...
nospam wrote:
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that
cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no
matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

they have the same understanding as anyone else would, and cb radio is
not always mobile either.

"hi, i'm driving, but wanted to call you about..."

plus, the driver can always toss the phone on the seat at any time, for
any reason, if traffic conditions demand it (or even if they don't).

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

then you aren't looking very hard.

Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are
carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and
sweet and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more
concentration.
I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation
to the detriment of driving .

Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop
using the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible
user would, do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject
talking on the phone?

Trouble is that you can't stop the other person from continuing to say
what they were saying and any test needs to put the driver in the situation
where they can't just ignore the phone, they need to have to be able to
repeat what the other person on the phone was saying so they can't just
ignore the phone when they need to.
That is the trouble with the test, it is slanted,sensible users would
ignore phone in difficult circumstances, but they want the test to show
dangers so that they can make laws for the lowest common denominator and
make it sound reasonable to the masses.
In one way I suppose they have to cater for the minute number of phone
related accidents, but I wish they did not have to make it difficult for
the majority.