Don't Text and Drive

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Gromgor
The biggest difference between cell phones and another person in the car, as far as conversation goes, is that a large part of our ability to understand comes from body language.

Well when I am driving I am not looking at the person talking so it really is pretty much the same.

I am not saying talking to someone is not a distraction. It is.

So is listening to the radio.

So is thinking.

My point is, listening to a phone conversation via a totally hands fee setup (especially if your car has bluetooth and it is completely automatic) is light years safer than holding or cradling a phone.

[Isaviel]

Well I don't have bluetooth cuz it's too expensive but I do have an ear piece. Though it can be dangerous. It plugs into the phone and I've had a situation where the cord would get in the way. It's usually my mom calling me to meet her somewhere to pick up my son or something along those lines. I will talk to her as I'm leaving work but by the time I get to the highway to get on I'm telling her I'm getting off the phone because I'm getting on the highway. There is just way too much going on on the highway at rush hour to be having a conversation on a phone. Handsfree or not for me anyhow.

I think the difference of being on a phone and having a conversation in the car is that the person in the car can see that there is alot going on with traffic and usually will remain quiet until things have settled down or at least until they feel it's safe to talk. To me that's a huge difference. A person on a phone can't see that someone is about to pull in front of you or change a lane or slam on their brakes or that traffic is very heavy and you need your concentration on the road.

Texting while driving? Crazy. Maybe one day they'll have a voice recognition program for that.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Isaviel
Well I don't have bluetooth cuz it's too expensive but I do have an ear piece.

Yes, technology costs money. But if it mattered to you, which it would if (a) your business depended on it and (b) legislation forbade the use of phones while driving without handsfree, then expense wouldn't be the issue.

Of course, like all computing/electronics/communication gadgetry, the price falls rapidly. Bluetooth headsets are now easily obtained, and far cheaper than they used to be. And they tie in well with car kits - since you no longer need the phone beside your ear, you can have it on a cradle so it (a) charges the battery, and (b) can connect with an aerial in the car for better reception. Not to mention that you don't have the radiation right beside your head (you have the much lower-power bluetooth radio instead), and although that's not _known_ to be a problem, it can't hurt to separate it from yourself.

What I'd like to see, though, is 802.11n coverage of a whole city. And then we'll abolish mobile phones to a large degree, put a wireless card in the vehicle, and use some kind of VOIP setup. It'd be incredibly expensive to roll out initially, but so wonderfully useful.

[Kravenar]

Originally posted by Rosuav
What I'd like to see, though, is 802.11n coverage of a whole city. And then we'll abolish mobile phones to a large degree, put a wireless card in the vehicle, and use some kind of VOIP setup. It'd be incredibly expensive to roll out initially, but so wonderfully useful.

Great Idea... so what are you doing about it .. GET TO WORK!

P.S. Wouldn't really abolish Mobile phones. Not everyone is in a car all the time - and mobiles are still a damn site lighter and more portable than a laptop.

[Khortez]

Here in the UK pretty much every mobile phone sold comes with a "hands-free kit". It's basically a cord, maybe two feet in length, with an earpiece at the end and a little mic a little way down the cord. Now, as far as I can see this is is no less dangerous Some people wait untill the phone rings before even putting the damn thing on! Other will wear it the whole journey, but you still have to divert your attention to answer it. While it's not as much of a danger as having to actually hold the phone to your ear, you still have to think about where the phone is, and unless the earpiece is bluetooth (which many in the UK still aren't) then you have to worry about where the cord is as well.

Unless you have the sort of technology that Aristotle mentioned, it's really not that much safer at all. Just another gadget that means you technically adhere to the letter of the law, while not making you any safer.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by kravenar
P.S. Wouldn't really abolish Mobile phones. Not everyone is in a car all the time - and mobiles are still a damn site lighter and more portable than a laptop.

That's why I caveated it to "a large degree". But part of the idea was that you didn't have to have a laptop per se, your car's own computer would have the wireless connection. Basically, you'd have a Skype-enabled car.

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Rosuav
That's why I caveated it to "a large degree". But part of the idea was that you didn't have to have a laptop per se, your car's own computer would have the wireless connection. Basically, you'd have a Skype-enabled car.

As a matter of fact, most second and a half generation to third and a half generation cell phones are basically modems in themselves. Therefore, I don't see any reason why you can't have a car with Skype (or any other similar program for that instance) built-in and all you need to do is plug in your cell phone and there you are online without the need for advanced technology on behalf of the public authorities.

[Loigan]

Originally posted by Aristotle

Some people argue "but eating, smoking, or changing the radio area dangerous too!" I agree, they are dangerous. But they are nowhere near as dangerous as the above things, and they generally only affect someone for a very brief amount of time. Chatting on a cell phone (or boggle, texting) can take up hours of a driver's time.

In my opinion it is safer to talk on the phone and drive then it is to eat or smoke.
(At least I cannot drive and eat very well at least not without getting food everywhere.)

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Loigan
In my opinion it is safer to talk on the phone and drive then it is to eat or smoke.
(At least I cannot drive and eat very well at least not without getting food everywhere.)

I think you are right because talking through a GOOD hands free device at least means you can drive with both hands. Further, eating and smoking both involve interacting with your mouth which means you will be frequently obscuring your vision. And what happens when food, ash, or the cig drops?

A woman returning home from a Memorial Day party had a terrible accident on the main road in our neighborhood in DC. She was smoking, dropped the cig, reached down to pick it up, somehow managed to knock the door ajar, fell out of the car, and ran over her own legs. She had 2 kids in the car! Fortunately, she was going up a slight hill so the car soon slowed, then rolled backwards up over the curb and hit a barrier. The kids were unharmed.

They had to send in a MedVac helicopter. The helicopter had to land in an intersection of streets in the neighborhood, and to give it room to land a fireman had to chop down a couple of street signs. It was a crazy situation.

[Jidoe]

I definitely think smoking is the most dangerous thing to do while driving. It involves a hand (not the whole hand, but in order to reach to your mouth, that hand cannot help in the driving process) and your mouth, which severely reduces your concentration and sight. And last, but not least, as Ari wrote, it's goddamn fire! If it falls it's quite horrible. I've heard of more than one accident that occured when someone dropped a cig on his crotch and then freaked out and hit something.

Cell phones are bad, no doubt, but cigs are much worse in my opinion.