Cell Phones and Novice Drivers - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Cell Phones and Novice Drivers
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 04:30:

lol

Posted by MarkT on Oct-13-2006 04:41:

I disagree that a conversation with someone beside you is the same as talking on the phone.

Talking on the phone is a more distant and distracting. The person on the other line isn't aware of what you're doing...they are not a "second set of eyes"...they won't shut up if you're in a stressful driving situation, etc.

It's hard for me to explain...but I think there's a real qualitative difference between the two.

Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-13-2006 05:05:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
I disagree that a conversation with someone beside you is the same as talking on the phone.

Talking on the phone is a more distant and distracting. The person on the other line isn't aware of what you're doing...they are not a "second set of eyes"...they won't shut up if you're in a stressful driving situation, etc.

It's hard for me to explain...but I think there's a real qualitative difference between the two.

There sure is:

a) There are no body language or facial expressions to interpret in a cell phone conversation thus taking more concentration.
Who doesn't mentally project that person in your mind when you're in a phone conversation?

b) In a loud environment, with a friend, I tend to lean towards them to hear what they're saying and focus more.

Those are just a couple of normal, behavioral conversation nuances.

Are they minor?
Maybe, but if there are stats to back up and warrant an actual Bill, then obviously, there's merit.

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 05:49:

Posted by 7-4-7 on Oct-13-2006 06:25:

I heard this on 640 while I was flying down to school, and I started to yell at the radio...and John Oakley seemed to think this was a great idea...only I found it ironic that his comments were more likely to distract me as a driver then any coversation I would have on my cellphone with a headset.

Nevertheless with a headset, a coffee and a smoke I am a far better driver than I am when I have none of the above.

Without, I am liable to do 140+ and pound music.

Frankly if you are a shit driver who has poor judgement then a cellphone will only make that sitaution worse. I dunno for me, the rules that apply to getting a full license may be too lax, we all know of people who are horse sit drivers who seem to somehow get a G2. Lets start there....

Posted by infinity HiGH on Oct-13-2006 13:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Unless you're having a conversation with your radio, there's no comparison...

Exactly. There's a difference between just listening to music or a host speak, and actually holding a cellphone in your hand and having a discussion.

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 15:54:

quote:
Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Exactly. There's a difference between just listening to music or a host speak, and actually holding a cellphone in your hand and having a discussion.

again id like to see that "difference" measured in a study. Otherwise this ban is just another feel good piece of junk legislation designed to make it look like politicians are doing their job.

Posted by MarkT on Oct-13-2006 17:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
again id like to see that "difference" measured in a study. Otherwise this ban is just another feel good piece of junk legislation designed to make it look like politicians are doing their job.

something tells me that the lack of a study is not the issue for you...as you would still see it as yet another "freedom" or "right" taken away from you by the gov't.

the health studies regarding smoking and second hand smoke have done nothing to sway you into accepting bans on smoking in public places...you just structure your complaint differently and claim that the "rights" or "freedoms" of business owners and smokers are being trampled.

tell me...under what scenario would you support a ban on cell phones in cars? if there isn't one, then you're above quote is bullshit (which is what I'm calling it).

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 17:08:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
something tells me that the lack of a study is not the issue for you...as you would still see it as yet another "freedom" or "right" taken away from you by the gov't.

the health studies regarding smoking and second hand smoke have done nothing to sway you into accepting bans on smoking in public places...you just structure your complaint differently and claim that the "rights" or "freedoms" of business owners and smokers are being trampled.

tell me...under what scenario would you support a ban on cell phones in cars? if there isn't one, then you're above quote is bullshit (which is what I'm calling it).

If you can demonstrate that its worse than talking to your passenger, eating a sandwich etc etc then id support it. But i just dont see it as a problem on that scale.

We already have laws for dangerous driving. Why cant we just enforce that instead? The answer is because then it doesnt give politicians headlines, thats why.

They had the same debat back in the 30s when they put radios in cars. The EXACT same debate in fact.

Posted by zokissima on Oct-13-2006 17:17:

quote:
Originally posted by 7-4-7
Nevertheless with a headset, a coffee and a smoke I am a far better driver than I am when I have none of the above.

Without, I am liable to do 140+ and pound music.

Frankly if you are a shit driver who has poor judgement then a cellphone will only make that sitaution worse. I dunno for me, the rules that apply to getting a full license may be too lax, we all know of people who are horse sit drivers who seem to somehow get a G2. Lets start there....

How exactly do you judge who's a shit driver, and who isn't, because its a fact that most drivers out there consider themselves to be above average drivers, which is a mathematical impossibility.

I agree with this in principle. It will be something to raise awareness rather than something that will be strictly enforced. It should apply to all drivers, not just novices.

Posted by Jem_hadar on Oct-13-2006 18:38:

quote:
Originally posted by zokissima
How exactly do you judge who's a shit driver, and who isn't, because its a fact that most drivers out there consider themselves to be above average drivers, which is a mathematical impossibility.

I agree with this in principle. It will be something to raise awareness rather than something that will be strictly enforced. It should apply to all drivers, not just novices.

I think to have it not as a 'blanket cover all' for all driver, you could only apply it to novice drivers, as there is a ready standard to identify them... ie. a G1 or G2 licence.

Posted by MarkT on Oct-13-2006 19:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
If you can demonstrate that its worse than talking to your passenger, eating a sandwich etc etc then id support it. But i just dont see it as a problem on that scale.

We already have laws for dangerous driving. Why cant we just enforce that instead? The answer is because then it doesnt give politicians headlines, thats why.

They had the same debat back in the 30s when they put radios in cars. The EXACT same debate in fact.

fair enough...I agree that studies should be conducted to see if that is the case (if they don't already exist). IMHO, the studies would back up the claims, but I'd defer to the experts.

on a side note, I trust that you feel exactly the same way about the CPC's street racing legislation? After all, every jurisdiction in the country already has speeding and dangerous driving laws on the books, right?

Posted by Cosmic Fur on Oct-13-2006 19:56:

By your logic jayx1, drunken driving should also fall under "dangerous driving".

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 20:03:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
fair enough...I agree that studies should be conducted to see if that is the case (if they don't already exist). IMHO, the studies would back up the claims, but I'd defer to the experts.

on a side note, I trust that you feel exactly the same way about the CPC's street racing legislation? After all, every jurisdiction in the country already has speeding and dangerous driving laws on the books, right?

yeah i didnt think the street racing law was justified after i though about it.

And u definately think going after suped up cars is very wrong.

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 20:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
By your logic jayx1, drunken driving should also fall under "dangerous driving".

being drunk and having a conversation are 2 different items that have been proven.

What i am asking is for a comparison to be made between cell phones and normal conversations/eating/other things that arent illegal.

if the differences are minimal, then they should either ban everything (which they wont) or STFU

Posted by Cosmic Fur on Oct-13-2006 20:18:

But they already showed that people driving with cellphones are as bad as people who drive drunk, and since drunk driving is outlawed, so should be cellphone driving.

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 20:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
But they already showed that people driving with cellphones are as bad as people who drive drunk, and since drunk driving is outlawed, so should be cellphone driving.

source?

Posted by Cosmic Fur on Oct-13-2006 20:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
source?

First page, Firestarter's post:

quote:

People conversing on cell phones while behind the wheel performed just as poorly in a driving simulator as those with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08%, the level at which someone can be convicted of drunken driving in Michigan and most states, according to psychologists at the University of Utah.

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 20:33:

hmmmmm well then i guess im drunk driving every day then!

(somehow i doubt it)

Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-13-2006 21:14:

Posted by Jayx1 on Oct-13-2006 21:15:

so lets ban radios!

Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-13-2006 21:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
so lets ban radios!

I'm pretty sure there have been accidents because of that; to think otherwise would be a little naive.

Why else would manufacturers start making the radio/stereo controls built into the steering wheel?

Can't sell to a dead cusomter now can you?

Pages (2): « 1 [2]