FYI...the sooner the laws are passed AND ENFORCED the better.

TMT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200605...BHNlY wN0bWE-

http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html

Poll: Ban Cell Phones While Driving Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
LiveScience.com
Sat May 27, 4:00 PM ET

A new survey finds two-thirds of Americans would support a law banning
cell phone use while driving.

Fewer than half, however, wish to make them illegal in restaurants and
movie theaters.

The poll of 849 adults, of which 69 percent owned cell phones, was
conducted in March and announced this week. While 29 percent of
respondents said they did not want such a law, 65 percent said states
should ban drivers from talking on cell phones.

Previous studies have suggested cell phones cause accidents that kill
thousands of people every year and create traffic jams. Even hands-free
phone use has been shown to slow driver reaction times. Study leader
Michael Traugott of the University of Michigan said the poll results
show that people understand these risks.

"I think this is a reflection of inherent concerns about driving
safety, as well as the concern about accidents due to cell phone use,"
Traugott told LiveScience.

Some 60 percent of those surveyed said they would maintain the ban on
cell phone use in airplanes. Whether they owned a cell phone or not,
the respondents were equally likely to support that ban.

"The concern about cell phone use in planes may relate to the fact that
it is an enclosed space and people can't walk away from loud
conversations in a way they can on land," Traugott said.

Cell phone use in public places was said to have irritated 60 percent
of the respondents, but only 43 percent support banning cell phone
conversations in places such as restaurants, theaters or museums.

"The support for the use of cell phones in public places, despite the
irritation, comes primarily from cell phone owners," Traugott said.
"They seem reluctant to impose restraints on their own behavior."

The poll also showed that younger adults were more likely to support
the use of cell phones in public places and while driving.

A separate survey released in April by the Pew Research Center found
that 28 percent of cell phone owners admit to sometimes not driving as
safely as they should while using mobile devices. In that poll, 81
percent of those who own cell phones said they were irritated at least
occasionally by loud and annoying cell users in public places.

----------


Drivers on Cell Phones Kill Thousands, Snarl Traffic

By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 01 February 2005
01:52 pm ET

Finally, empirical proof you can blame chatty 20-somethings for
stop-and-go traffic on the way to work.

A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows
dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and tying up traffic in
general, and when young adults use cell phones while driving, they're
as bad as sleepy septuagenarians.

"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone,
their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not
using a cell phone," said University of Utah psychology professor David
Strayer. "It's like instantly aging a large number of drivers."

The study was announced today and is detailed in winter issue of the
quarterly journal Human Factors.

Traffic jams and death

Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the
United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

The reason is now obvious:


Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to brake
lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also kept a
12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17 percent
longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That frustrates
everyone.

"Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to
get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net
result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."

Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001,
they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In
2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because
they're distracted by the conversation. The scientists also found
previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers
with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.

Separate research last year at University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign supported the conclusion that hands-free cell phone
use causes driver distraction.

"With younger adults, everything got worse," said Arthur Kramer, who
led the Illinois study. "Both young adults and older adults tended to
show deficits in performance. They made more errors in detecting
important changes and they took longer to react to the changes."

The impaired reactions involved seconds, not just fractions of a
second, so stopping distances increased by car-lengths.

Older drivers more cautious

The latest study used high-tech simulators. It included people aged 18
to 25 and another group aged 65 to 74. Elderly drivers were slower to
react when talking on the phone, too.

The simulations uncovered a twofold increase in the number of rear-end
collisions by drivers using cell phones.

Older drivers seem to be more cautious overall, however.

"Older drivers were slightly less likely to get into accidents than
younger drivers," Strayer said. "They tend to have a greater following
distance. Their reactions are impaired, but they are driving so
cautiously they were less likely to smash into somebody." But in real
life, he added, older drivers are significantly more likely to be
rear-ended because of their slow speed.

Other studies in the journal found:

Telephone numbers presented by automated voice systems compete for
drivers' attention to a far greater extent than when the driver sees
the same information presented on a display.
Interruptions to driving, such as answering a call, are likely to be
more dangerous if they occur during maneuvers like merging to exit a
freeway.
Things could get worse. Wireless Internet, speech recognition systems
and e-mail could all be even more distracting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are Cell Phones Really So Dangerous?
Posted Feb. 2, 2005 at 10:15 a.m. ET

Several readers wrote to LiveScience questioning whether cell phones
were really so bad for drivers. Here is some additional information
that helps illuminate the death statistic.

The estimates of annual deaths reported in this week's article (2,600)
may well be low. The number, for U.S. deaths related to drivers using
cell phones, comes from a 2002 study by the Harvard Center for Risk
Analysis (HCRA). Researchers then estimated that the use of cell phones
by drivers caused approximately 2,600 deaths.

Because data on cell phone use by motorists are limited, the range of
uncertainty is wide, those researchers said. The estimate of fatalities
in that HCRA report ranged between 800 and 8,000.

Importantly, the researchers noted (in 2002) that increasing cell phone
use could be expected to cause the annual death estimate to rise. The
2002 estimate, for example, was up from an estimate of 1,000 deaths in
the year 2000. Logic suggests the number -- though just an estimate --
could be much higher in 2005.

The estimates are based largely on mathematical models, but they are
not without basis. In 2001 in California, for example, "at least 4,699
reported accidents were blamed on drivers using cell phones, and those
crashes killed 31 people and injured 2,786," according to an analysis
by The Los Angeles Times. That number can expected to be low, because
of the lack of formal procedures for noting cell phone use as a cause
of a traffic accident.

The Times also noted a 1997 study of Canadian drivers "who agreed to
have their cell phone records scrutinized found that the risk of an
accident was four times greater while a driver was using the phone."

Each year, about 42,000 people die in U.S. auto accidents.

Here is how the new University of Utah simulations were conducted:

Participants in the simulator used dashboard instruments, steering
wheel and brake and gas pedals from a Ford Crown Victoria sedan,
surrounded by three screens showing freeway scenes and traffic,
including a "pace car" that intermittently hit its brakes 32 times as
it appeared to drive in front of study participants.

If a participant failed to hit their own brakes, they eventually would
rear-end the pace car. Each participant drove four simulated 10-mile
freeway trips lasting about 10 minutes each, talking on a cell phone
with a research assistant during half the trips and driving without
talking the other half. Only hands-free phones were used to eliminate
any possible distraction from manipulating a hand-held cell phone.

Thirty times each second, the simulator measured the participants'
driving speed, following distance and - if applicable - how long it
took them to hit the brakes and how long it took them to regain speed.

-- RRB

Don't like cellphones on freeways? Build a simple jammer and nuke 'em with about
30 focussed watts of power so they lose lock, drop signal, and hang up. Wait
until they redial and blast 'em again. Just don't aim it at your crotch and pull
the trigger, and don't aim it at any overhead aircraft .. :-)

GWE
once offered $$$ to design and build one but declined after some reflection

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
Don't like cellphones on freeways? Build a simple jammer and nuke 'em with
about
30 focussed watts of power so they lose lock, drop signal, and hang up.
Wait
until they redial and blast 'em again. Just don't aim it at your crotch
and pull
the trigger, and don't aim it at any overhead aircraft .. :-)

And beaurocrats in the 'Rinky Dink' towns think "hands free" cell phones are
ok. In actuality it's the conversation that distracts drivers and causes
problems. 'Hands free' is NOT any safer. If you want to yak on the phone,
get off the road.

spamno wrote:


"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
Don't like cellphones on freeways? Build a simple jammer and nuke 'em
with
about
30 focussed watts of power so they lose lock, drop signal, and hang up.
Wait
until they redial and blast 'em again. Just don't aim it at your crotch
and pull
the trigger, and don't aim it at any overhead aircraft .. :-)

And beaurocrats in the 'Rinky Dink' towns think "hands free" cell phones
are ok. In actuality it's the conversation that distracts drivers and
causes problems. 'Hands free' is NOT any safer. If you want to yak on the
phone, get off the road.

If conversation causes problems then I think you need a statute that
requires that all passengers be gagged and earmuffed.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I agree there is a problem but where is your rant on DUI-related deaths?
http://www.duiawardsprogram.com/dui_stats.htm
FYI...the sooner the laws are ENFORCED the better.
Respectfully,
Ron Moore


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
s.com...
FYI...the sooner the laws are passed AND ENFORCED the better.

TMT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200605...BHNlY wN0bWE-

http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html

SNIP

Traffic jams and death

Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the
United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

The reason is now obvious:

SNIP

"I agree there is a problem but where is your rant on DUI-related
deaths?
http://www.duiawardsprogram.com/dui_stats.htm
FYI...the sooner the laws are ENFORCED the better.
Respectfully,
Ron Moore "

It goes double for drinking and driving Ron.

In my own family, we lost five family members in one accident due to a
drunk driver.

If I ran the world, a car would test for blood alcohol before starting
and while you are driving.

You drink...you walk.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
"I agree there is a problem but where is your rant on DUI-related
deaths?
http://www.duiawardsprogram.com/dui_stats.htm
FYI...the sooner the laws are ENFORCED the better.
Respectfully,
Ron Moore "

If I ran the world, a car would test for blood alcohol before starting
and while you are driving.

Easy and cheap these days. Makes you wonder....


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:46:07 -0700, Grant Erwin wrote:
Don't like cellphones on freeways? Build a simple jammer and nuke 'em with about
30 focussed watts of power so they lose lock, drop signal, and hang up. Wait
until they redial and blast 'em again. Just don't aim it at your crotch and pull
the trigger, and don't aim it at any overhead aircraft .. :-)

Right, because of course _all_ people with cellphones are a hazard.

Could it be, just maybe, that you only look at the cars that are
problems, and see the cellphone? What about the guys who aren't causing
problems with them?

I submit that people who are bad drivers when they're on their
cellphone, are bad drivers when they're _off_ their cellphone as well.

"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
Don't like cellphones on freeways? Build a simple jammer and nuke 'em with
about 30 focussed watts of power so they lose lock, drop signal, and hang
up. Wait until they redial and blast 'em again.

I have heard of these devices, and would like to get one. Can you elaborate
on where to buy a ready made unit, or how to build one?

Steve

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

If I ran the world, a car would test for blood alcohol before starting
and while you are driving.

Easy and cheap these days. Makes you wonder...

That big alcohol has more power than big oil?

Wes S

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in
s.com:

snip


The estimates of annual deaths reported in this week's article (2,600)
may well be low. The number, for U.S. deaths related to drivers using
cell phones, comes from a 2002 study by the Harvard Center for Risk
Analysis (HCRA). Researchers then estimated that the use of cell phones
by drivers caused approximately 2,600 deaths.

Ok. That works out to one fatality per billion miles driven. It hardly
seems like a crises to me.

But go ahead and legislate a little more freedom away. It's very trendy
these days.

Seeing as how you are seven times more likely to be killed in a plane crash
per mile travelled. And as a member of the general population you are just
as likely to be killed by a motorcycle as you are a cell phone weilding
driver, perhaps we should ban them as well.

--

Dan

Quid Aere Perennius

On Sun, 28 May 2006 18:15:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

spamno wrote:


"Grant Erwin" wrote in message
...
Don't like cellphones on freeways? Build a simple jammer and nuke 'em
with
about
30 focussed watts of power so they lose lock, drop signal, and hang up.
Wait
until they redial and blast 'em again. Just don't aim it at your crotch
and pull
the trigger, and don't aim it at any overhead aircraft .. :-)

And beaurocrats in the 'Rinky Dink' towns think "hands free" cell phones
are ok. In actuality it's the conversation that distracts drivers and
causes problems. 'Hands free' is NOT any safer. If you want to yak on the
phone, get off the road.

If conversation causes problems then I think you need a statute that
requires that all passengers be gagged and earmuffed.

and all CB radios removed from all truckers. Odd..I dont recall very
many wrecks as a result of CB radios, do you?

other than the one time a gal and a guy were humpin in the drivers
seat at 60+ miles per hour and she got her leg wrapped up in the mic
cord and they had a wreck during the struggle to get her free.

(I-5, 1983, Buttonwillow)

Gunner

"If thy pride is sorely vexed when others disparage your offering, be
as lamb's wool is to cold rain and the Gore-tex of Odin's raiment
is to gull**** in the gale, for thy angst shall vex them not at
all. Yea, they shall scorn thee all the more. Rejoice in
sharing what you have to share without expectation of adoration,
knowing that sharing your treasure does not diminish your treasure
but enriches it."

- Onni 1:33

wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

If I ran the world, a car would test for blood alcohol before starting
and while you are driving.

Easy and cheap these days. Makes you wonder...

That big alcohol has more power than big oil?

Or that every such test they devised was defeated easily enough to be not
worth the effort.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article .com,
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

"I agree there is a problem but where is your rant on DUI-related
deaths?
http://www.duiawardsprogram.com/dui_stats.htm
FYI...the sooner the laws are ENFORCED the better.
Respectfully,
Ron Moore "

It goes double for drinking and driving Ron.

In my own family, we lost five family members in one accident due to a
drunk driver.

If I ran the world, a car would test for blood alcohol before starting
and while you are driving.

You drink...you walk.

Better than banning cell phones or alcohol (prohibition didn't work) is
to treat them as premeditated. Since a drinker or cell phone user is
deliberately degrading their driving ability, if they kill someone while
drinking or using the cell phone it should be treated as premeditated
murder. No accident = no problem, a death means a trip to the gallows.
The remaining people would learn quickly. Accidents are caused by
people, not cars or cell phones or alcohol etc.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull wrote:

In article .com,
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

"I agree there is a problem but where is your rant on DUI-related
deaths?
http://www.duiawardsprogram.com/dui_stats.htm
FYI...the sooner the laws are ENFORCED the better.
Respectfully,
Ron Moore "

It goes double for drinking and driving Ron.

In my own family, we lost five family members in one accident due to a
drunk driver.

If I ran the world, a car would test for blood alcohol before starting
and while you are driving.

You drink...you walk.

Better than banning cell phones or alcohol (prohibition didn't work) is
to treat them as premeditated. Since a drinker or cell phone user is
deliberately degrading their driving ability, if they kill someone while
drinking or using the cell phone it should be treated as premeditated
murder. No accident = no problem, a death means a trip to the gallows.
The remaining people would learn quickly. Accidents are caused by
people, not cars or cell phones or alcohol etc.

The trouble with this scenario is that most drunks don't deliberately set
out to get drunk and having gotten drunk they are in no condition to judge
their state of sobriety, so making premeditation stick is going to be
difficult.

Cell phones are another story but there you have to make convincing argument
that talking on the cell phone is somehow worse than talking to the
passengers, or else you have to hang anybody who had a fatal accident with
a passenger in the car. And do you hang the passenger for conversing with
and thus intentionally impairing the ability of the driver?

This kind of solution looks good to children. Once you reach a certain
level of life experience (which, alas, many people never attain) you
realize that things just aren't that simple.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 29 May 2006 07:08:06 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, D Murphy
quickly quoth:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in
ps.com:

snip


The estimates of annual deaths reported in this week's article (2,600)
may well be low. The number, for U.S. deaths related to drivers using
cell phones, comes from a 2002 study by the Harvard Center for Risk
Analysis (HCRA). Researchers then estimated that the use of cell phones
by drivers caused approximately 2,600 deaths.

Ok. That works out to one fatality per billion miles driven. It hardly
seems like a crises to me.

wetm Crisis. /wannabe English teacher mode


But go ahead and legislate a little more freedom away. It's very trendy
these days.

Seeing as how you are seven times more likely to be killed in a plane crash
per mile travelled. And as a member of the general population you are just
as likely to be killed by a motorcycle as you are a cell phone weilding
driver, perhaps we should ban them as well.

I'd like to see tickets for wreckless driving issued to each driver
who is on the phone when they're involved in an accident. Take away
their license for awhile and just _maybe_ they'd learn to pull over
when they had a phone call (or argument with a passenger), eh?

I'd like to see cops pull over people who are engaged in an argument
(with kids OR adults) in a moving vehicle, too. How many times have
you seen a mother reach into the back seat and swat a brat, or use her
hands dozens of times to emphasize points in a heated discussion with
a passenger? These folks are dangerous, too.

Ever watch a driver who has dropped their cigarette between their
legs?

Maybe some of these will be new "reality" TV shows. yawn
(Thank Buddha for commercial-free digital radio channels.)


-------------------------------------------------
- Boldly going - * Wondrous Website Design
- nowhere. - * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------

Failure to pay full time and attention to driving. A law that is already on
the books. If an officer sees you doing ANYTHING in the car but driving,
they should be able to cite you. Adjusting the radio, putting on makeup,
talking on a cell, slapping the kids, whatever. If the officer can see that
the activity is affecting the driving, they should be able to cite.

I do not understand for the life of me how anyone here who actually drives
can take a pro cell phone position. All one has to do is drive, and they
will encounter people who have the cell glued to their ear, and are intent
into the conversation, and not into the driving.

Statistics are there. Cell phones are dangerous. The time is coming when
action will be taken. Until then, people will die, and pain will be caused
by the liberal bent who think their phonecalls and "rights" are more
important than public safety.

Steve

wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

If I ran the world, a car would test for blood alcohol before
starting and while you are driving.

Easy and cheap these days. Makes you wonder...

That big alcohol has more power than big oil?


Not really. Both generate significant tax revenue and indirectly create
jobs.
What is worth considering is whether the statistics are saying that the
underlying minimum has nearly been reached in terms of drinking drivers as a
percentage of the driving public. Something like 5 percent unemployment
being full employment.
In the case of alchohol, the state contends that a person consuming a
substance that impairs good judgement requires little more than the
excercise of good judgement to deal with. It's an oxymoron.

Cell phones are different. A cell phone doesn't impair your ability to
reason properly, only to pay attention to the task of driving.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"J. Clarke" wrote

This kind of solution looks good to children. Once you reach a certain
level of life experience (which, alas, many people never attain) you
realize that things just aren't that simple.

--
--John

Alas, many people attain this "level of experience" with just one experience
with a cell phone impaired driver. Seems simple to me. Driving requires
all the hands you have. That is, one armed people may drive, but those with
two arms should use them both. If you are driving with one hand on the
phone and holding it to your ear, you are driving in an impaired fashion.
Not to mention your mental faculties are being overtaxed because of the
conversation.

For certain people, this "level of experience" comes with little actual
experience. You seem to say it is some sort of mental superiority. But
usually it involves losing someone to a cell phone impaired driver, or
having your life changed by one without a fatality involved. The mental
superiority you tout amounts to massive self-indulgence and
self-centeredness. Exactly the same as imagined intellectual superiority.

"Oh, I can drive safely and put on my makeup and talk on my cell phone and
run my laptop and read and put on a CD. I'm not like REGULAR humans."

Steve

"John R. Carroll" wrote

Cell phones are different. A cell phone doesn't impair your ability to
reason properly, only to pay attention to the task of driving.


--
John R. Carroll

Then could you please explain to me a person's total loss of coordination
and reasoning caused by a cell phone ringing?

Steve ;-)

On Mon, 29 May 2006 06:01:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 29 May 2006 07:08:06 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, D Murphy
quickly quoth:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in
ups.com:


Ok. That works out to one fatality per billion miles driven. It hardly
seems like a crises to me.

wetm Crisis. /wannabe English teacher mode


I'd like to see tickets for wreckless driving issued to each driver
who is on the phone when they're involved in an accident.

I think you mean 'reckless' .

-Carl

On 28 May 2006 13:48:52 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

FYI...the sooner the laws are passed AND ENFORCED the better.

TMT

Already done in New York- you cna only use a hands-free cell phone or
headset. Cops rarely pull over a driver for driving & talking (the
courts would be backlogged for decades) unless the driver is all over
the road or has kids in the car, but will issue a ticket if a driver
is using a cell phone and causes an accident (which carries additional
legal ramifications and penalties).

-Carl

Steve B wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote

Cell phones are different. A cell phone doesn't impair your ability
to reason properly, only to pay attention to the task of driving.


Then could you please explain to me a person's total loss of
coordination and reasoning caused by a cell phone ringing?


LOL
That's easy. Cell phones are designed to get your attention by startling
you. They do. In fact, you are encouraged to select a ring tone that will
gaurantee it.The idea is a ring tone that sounds like a metal tray of bolts
hitting the floor from a six foot dead drop without the change of shorts.
The reflex is both autonomic as well as conditioned. You can't help
yourself.

Cellular providers make money when you use your equipment so they encourage
users to do so whenever possible but that doesn't necessarily mean they are
trying to kill their customers.

You wouldn't shoot skeet and talk on the phone would you?
Of course not, and if your phone distracted you while shooting you'd turn
the damned thing off without thinking about it.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:35:22 GMT, Nick Hull wrote:
In article .com,
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

You drink...you walk.

Better than banning cell phones or alcohol (prohibition didn't work) is
to treat them as premeditated.

Oh no, Nick, you're talking to TMT, who wants to ban _everything_ except
for evil things like, you know, proving you live where you want to vote
and other things of that nature. Personal responsibility doesn't exist
in it's word, so it assumes it doesn't exist in the rest of ours.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
.. .
Steve B wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote

Cell phones are different. A cell phone doesn't impair your ability
to reason properly, only to pay attention to the task of driving.


Then could you please explain to me a person's total loss of
coordination and reasoning caused by a cell phone ringing?


LOL
That's easy. Cell phones are designed to get your attention by startling
you. They do. In fact, you are encouraged to select a ring tone that will
gaurantee it.The idea is a ring tone that sounds like a metal tray of
bolts
hitting the floor from a six foot dead drop without the change of shorts.
The reflex is both autonomic as well as conditioned. You can't help
yourself.

Cellular providers make money when you use your equipment so they
encourage
users to do so whenever possible but that doesn't necessarily mean they
are
trying to kill their customers.

You wouldn't shoot skeet and talk on the phone would you?
Of course not, and if your phone distracted you while shooting you'd turn
the damned thing off without thinking about it.

--
John R. Carroll

Well, when you're shooting skeet, you're doing something important. Not
like when driving.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
.. .
Steve B wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote

Cell phones are different. A cell phone doesn't impair your ability
to reason properly, only to pay attention to the task of driving.


Then could you please explain to me a person's total loss of
coordination and reasoning caused by a cell phone ringing?


LOL
That's easy. Cell phones are designed to get your attention by
startling you. They do. In fact, you are encouraged to select a ring
tone that will gaurantee it.The idea is a ring tone that sounds like
a metal tray of bolts
hitting the floor from a six foot dead drop without the change of
shorts. The reflex is both autonomic as well as conditioned. You
can't help yourself.

Cellular providers make money when you use your equipment so they
encourage
users to do so whenever possible but that doesn't necessarily mean
they are
trying to kill their customers.

You wouldn't shoot skeet and talk on the phone would you?
Of course not, and if your phone distracted you while shooting you'd
turn the damned thing off without thinking about it.

--
John R. Carroll

Well, when you're shooting skeet, you're doing something important.
Not like when driving.

Steve


Agreed. We wouldn't want those pesky skeet to over run the world now would
we :)

Enjoy the holiday Steve.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , Carl Byrns says...

Already done in New York- you cna only use a hands-free cell phone or
headset. Cops rarely pull over a driver for driving & talking (the
courts would be backlogged for decades) unless the driver is all over
the road or has kids in the car, but will issue a ticket if a driver
is using a cell phone and causes an accident (which carries additional
legal ramifications and penalties).

It will be a seat-belt law kind of thing in NY I bet, Carl. At first
when they passed the seatbelt law, they never enforced it. Now the
big deal is, they run traffic checks (mostly on freeway on-ramps)
and if you don't have the belt on, they write you up. Enforcement
was phased in gradually and folks actually got the message, pretty
soon the stops will quit producing revenue. So they'll have to
switch to something else.

Next will be hand-held cell phones.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

and all CB radios removed from all truckers. Odd..I dont recall very
many wrecks as a result of CB radios, do you?

Funny how you never *did* see many trucks just stopped in the middle
of the road, with the driver engrossed in his CB radio converatsion.

Last week the count was *three*, three morons who got so wrapped
up in their phone call they just stopped in the middle of the
road.

Here we have the perfect example why Jim's Rule should be
adopted by car makers: all safety devices should be removed
from cars. No more seat belts, collapsing steering columns,
ABS brakes, traction control units, air bags, safty glass, etc.

Then the driver's seat should be installed in front of the
front bumper.

At that point if the driver really, really wants to 'phone home'
then they should be free to do so at any time, in any place.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Already done in New York- you cna only use a hands-free cell phone or

headset. Cops rarely pull over a driver for driving & talking (the
courts would be backlogged for decades) unless the driver is all over
the road or has kids in the car, but will issue a ticket if a driver
is using a cell phone and causes an accident (which carries additional
legal ramifications and penalties).


It will be a seat-belt law kind of thing in NY I bet, Carl. At first
when they passed the seatbelt law, they never enforced it. Now the
big deal is, they run traffic checks (mostly on freeway on-ramps)
and if you don't have the belt on, they write you up. Enforcement
was phased in gradually and folks actually got the message, pretty
soon the stops will quit producing revenue. So they'll have to
switch to something else.

Next will be hand-held cell phones.


Jim "

Actually a good way to do cell phone enforcement is to enlist the
public's help.

If the public saw someone using a cell phone while in driving a car,
record the license number and forward it to the police. Crosschecking
phone records could establish that the phone was in use during time it
was seen and with GPS the location would be available. Then sit back
and watch the revenues roll in....

TMT

Grant Erwin wrote:

Don't like cellphones on freeways? Build a simple jammer and nuke 'em
with about 30 focussed watts of power so they lose lock, drop signal,
and hang up. Wait until they redial and blast 'em again. Just don't aim
it at your crotch and pull the trigger, and don't aim it at any overhead
aircraft .. :-)

GWE
once offered $$$ to design and build one but declined after some reflection


A spark gap coupled to a tuned tank ckt. on the cellphone freqs. would
work fine. Put a series resonant ckt in the hot wire of your ignition
coil.

John

"
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:35:22 GMT, Nick Hull
wrote:
In article .com,
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

You drink...you walk.


Better than banning cell phones or alcohol (prohibition didn't work) is
to treat them as premeditated.

Oh no, Nick, you're talking to TMT, who wants to ban _everything_
except
for evil things like, you know, proving you live where you want to vote

and other things of that nature. Personal responsibility doesn't
exist
in it's word, so it assumes it doesn't exist in the rest of ours. "

Yes Dave, I am against drunken gun carrying groundhogs driving while
using their cell phones. LOL

In all seriousness, I get to visit five gravesites today that resulted
from a drunk driver.

There is NO excuse for drinking and driving...NONE.

If I am on the jury of a drunk driver who has killed someone, they
won't be going home to drink again any time soon.

TMT

John R. Carroll wrote:

Steve B wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote

Cell phones are different. A cell phone doesn't impair your ability
to reason properly, only to pay attention to the task of driving.



Then could you please explain to me a person's total loss of
coordination and reasoning caused by a cell phone ringing?



LOL
That's easy. Cell phones are designed to get your attention by startling
you. They do. In fact, you are encouraged to select a ring tone that will
gaurantee it.The idea is a ring tone that sounds like a metal tray of bolts
hitting the floor from a six foot dead drop without the change of shorts.
The reflex is both autonomic as well as conditioned. You can't help
yourself.

Cellular providers make money when you use your equipment so they encourage
users to do so whenever possible but that doesn't necessarily mean they are
trying to kill their customers.

You wouldn't shoot skeet and talk on the phone would you?
Of course not, and if your phone distracted you while shooting you'd turn
the damned thing off without thinking about it.



Dick Chaney probably had his cellpone on and got distracted.


John

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Cell phones are different. A cell phone doesn't impair your ability to
reason properly, only to pay attention to the task of driving.

Your 'one liner' simply does not stand up to the numerous studies that prove
cell phones distract drivers and impair their ability too focus on the task
of driving.

"Actually a good way to do cell phone enforcement is to enlist the
public's help.


If the public saw someone using a cell phone while in driving a car,
record the license number and forward it to the police. Crosschecking
phone records could establish that the phone was in use during time it
was seen and with GPS the location would be available. Then sit back
and watch the revenues roll in....


TMT "

On further thought it wouldn't have to be this complicated...the NSA
already has all the data available that is needed to know if the cell
is being used during driving...and the government could seize the car
like they do in drug busts to cover costs.

TMT