Text 8335, 70 rader
Skriven 2010-06-08 06:09:24 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
   Kommentar till text 8324 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Reachability
====================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday June 08 2010 at 00:53:

RB>> Different mindset, apparently. I object very much to incoming calls
RB>> while driving, if for no other reason than the ring tones startle you
RB>> and may cause unwanted reactions at the wheel.

MV> If you are that jumpy, how about the siren of the fire truck or an
MV> ambulance?

I think you'll find that I'm not the only one who starts when he hears a
sudden, unexpected loud noise when driving. Fire trucks and ambulances (and
police cars) can't be avoided, but phone calls can. Why not eliminate what's
possible?

RB>> However, in contrast to the powers-that-be, I don't necessarily agree
RB>> that phoning while driving is dangerous, even without a car kit.

MV> Research has demonstrated that it DOES distract and that reaction
MV> times go down when on the phone.

Sure... and if the cellphone manufacturers were to commission their own
research, it would show that phoning while driving is totally harmless. You can
"prove" anything you want as long as you pay the researcher enough and/or ask
the "right" questions.

RB>> The argument that it distracts you is not valid, since you are also
RB>> distracted by a radio or someone in the passenger seat talking to
RB>> you. The argument that one of your hands is taken up is also invalid,
RB>> since many people - including me - often drive with one hand anyway,

MV> True, but when driving with one hand the free hand is still available
MV> in an emergency. If it holds a phone, this availability is reduced.

Drop the phone in an emergency, same as you go for the brake at lightening
speed.

RB>> particulerly on long streches without traffic.

MV> In The Netherlands long stretches without traffic are a thing of the
MV> past. :-(

Well, I admit you have a problem with the high traffic density there.

RB>> That argument would only really apply in the city, where you have to
RB>> shift gears often and can't do that easily while holding a phone.

MV> Unless you drive an automatic...

In _Europe_??? That's like citing the people who drive a stick-shift car in the
States ;-)

RB>> The people the powers-that-be really want to eliminate are those who
RB>> get so absorbed in a conversation that they pay no attention to the
RB>> road, but you aren't going to eliminate them by prohibiting cell
RB>> phoning - you'd also have to prohibit most women drivers and prohibit
RB>> two women from travelling together in a car, since that situation
RB>> generally leads to machine-gun talking with hardly a second to draw a
RB>> breath.

MV> The difference is that a passenger is aware of traffic conditions and
MV> can be trained to shut up when he/she sees that the driver needs to
MV> direct more attention to the driving...

My, you _are_ optimistic. My experience is that _nothing_ will stop a woman
talking except tying and gagging her.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)