Cagers don't drive anymore.

[tallman]

Some people can multi-task.

Perhaps they do part of one task less effectively than they are capable of if doing just that, but still better than 99% of the population.

Airplanes don't crash because the pilot is on the radio w/ATC and then gets on the mike to tell the passengers it's last call before landing.

Some people can't sit down in a dark room and light a flashlight.

Some can't sit at a desk and answer a phone and keep info straight.

Some can't push the up button on the elevator when talking.

These people have never learned, and never will, how to think, function, act, respond, in an organized efficient manner to their environment.

What may be worse is they either really don't get it, don't care, or intentionally continue behaviors that are inefficient, underproductive, and that have potentially negative outcomes.

Sorry to take so long to get to the point.

I'm typing this while on the cell phone, talking to my wife, watching the conclusion of the Mizzou game (on fast forward), reading the newspaper, eating breakfast, checking my GPS for Saturday's ride, and deciding which golf course may be best suited for today's self torture.

YMMV.

[Deek]

LEO's are exempt from the cell phone law.............

 

Not where I was a reserve LEO, at least cell phone usage was banned while in uniform. Well, at least on paper. But few officers would dare use a cell phone will driving in case the public would report them, which did happen. It actually got so bad for a while that officers on duty could not even CARRY a cell phone. Finally, after the department get embarassed enough times on the radios they relented and allowed us to carry a cell phone for those inevitable times when a cell phone communication made a lot more sense than radio communication.

 

I personally do NOT want cell phones use to be illegal while driving. However, I very much DO want to see bad drivers removed from the road and fined for whatever reason "caused" them to be bad drivers. Let's put the blame on those who actually DO something wrong.

[Deek]

..(walking at night on the shoulder) ..Sure, a crash would legally be my fault, but they'll be the one with amputated legs or a shattered spine. You would think they might be concerned about their own safety, but I guess not...

 

I think you give those people too much credit. They are not that bright, trust me.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

I'm typing this while on the cell phone, talking to my wife, watching the conclusion of the Mizzou game (on fast forward), reading the newspaper, eating breakfast, checking my GPS for Saturday's ride, and deciding which golf course may be best suited for today's self torture.

YMMV.

 

You my friend are exceptional!

[Lets_Play_Two]

Some people can multi-task.

Perhaps they do part of one task less effectively than they are capable of if doing just that, but still better than 99% of the population.

Airplanes don't crash because the pilot is on the radio w/ATC and then gets on the mike to tell the passengers it's last call before landing.

Some people can't sit down in a dark room and light a flashlight.

Some can't sit at a desk and answer a phone and keep info straight.

Some can't push the up button on the elevator when talking.

These people have never learned, and never will, how to think, function, act, respond, in an organized efficient manner to their environment.

What may be worse is they either really don't get it, don't care, or intentionally continue behaviors that are inefficient, underproductive, and that have potentially negative outcomes.

Sorry to take so long to get to the point.

I'm typing this while on the cell phone, talking to my wife, watching the conclusion of the Mizzou game (on fast forward), reading the newspaper, eating breakfast, checking my GPS for Saturday's ride, and deciding which golf course may be best suited for today's self torture.

YMMV.

 

Did you miss any of the wife's hand signals why you were multi-tasking? Or walk into any closed doors?

[Bullett]

Then there are idiots like this guy: SL Trib Linky

 

Rear ends a police cruiser 3 times, then drives off and crashes into another vehicle.

[tallman]

Nope.

She was watching the end of the game and doing the crossword puzzle.

(I helped with that too).

 

She just decided where to go play golf, so we're out of here.

[Twisties]

Some people can multi-task.

Perhaps they do part of one task less effectively than they are capable of if doing just that, but still better than 99% of the population.

Airplanes don't crash because the pilot is on the radio w/ATC and then gets on the mike to tell the passengers it's last call before landing.

Some people can't sit down in a dark room and light a flashlight.

Some can't sit at a desk and answer a phone and keep info straight.

Some can't push the up button on the elevator when talking.

These people have never learned, and never will, how to think, function, act, respond, in an organized efficient manner to their environment.

What may be worse is they either really don't get it, don't care, or intentionally continue behaviors that are inefficient, underproductive, and that have potentially negative outcomes.

Sorry to take so long to get to the point.

I'm typing this while on the cell phone, talking to my wife, watching the conclusion of the Mizzou game (on fast forward), reading the newspaper, eating breakfast, checking my GPS for Saturday's ride, and deciding which golf course may be best suited for today's self torture.

YMMV.

 

You sound just like the drunk that thinks he can drive.

[tallman]

No sir, I don't.

Having worked as a bartender, in counseling, and neurological care, I've had plenty of experience with drunks/addicts.

Having been run over by a drunk driver, I have personal experience with that too.

The drunk may think he can do a task, but performance would indicate otherwise.

I have done multiple activities simultaneously since before the term multitasking was coined and based on performance review and competitive outcomes, done them well.

 

This doesn't make me a "better" person, just different.

 

Your response may have been an attempt at humor, but there was no indication (insert emoticom) of that.

 

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

Shouldn't we be directing equal ire at all of us on this site who do the same thing we're screaming at cagers about? Not just when WE are driving, but when we're RIDING, too.

Yes, I agree.

 

But I sure wish my Autocom Bluetooth phone adapter I ordered would get here.

 

[Twisties]

No sir, I don't.

Having worked as a bartender, in counseling, and neurological care, I've had plenty of experience with drunks/addicts.

Having been run over by a drunk driver, I have personal experience with that too.

The drunk may think he can do a task, but performance would indicate otherwise.

I have done multiple activities simultaneously since before the term multitasking was coined and based on performance review and competitive outcomes, done them well.

 

This doesn't make me a "better" person, just different.

 

Your response may have been an attempt at humor, but there was no indication (insert emoticom) of that.

 

 

Well it certainly was not an attempt at humor. Take it for exactly what it says, which is certainly nothing you need find offensive or get uppity about. I did not say or imply that you are a drunk.

 

My point is that people seem to think they are some kind of exception. You seem to think you are some kind of exception. In context, as I understand you, you are arguing that because you exist as an exception there should be no law against cell phone use while driving as it would be unfair to your exceptional self.

 

Not being in possession of the evidence of your exceptional qualities, sounds just like, "The drunk may think he can do a task, but performance would indicate otherwise." to me. That's my point and I'm sticking to it Tim. The studies show distraction impairs driving ability and if you want to think you are an exception, that's your prerogative. I choose to believe otherwise. I think we are all impaired by driving with a cell phone. I see plenty of evidence of it whenever I'm on the road, and the controlled studies back me up.

 

[Ken H.]

Some people can multi-task.

I hate to break the news to you, but psychology studies show there is no such thing.

 

The human mind can work on a task, quit working on it and go to another, then return to the former, but it is incapable of processing two thought ‘threads’ at the same time. It can switch back and forth (even amongst numerous thought processes), sometimes at an amazing speed, but there is always a measurable loss of efficiency while it regains the position it was on the previous task prior to resuming it. And the greater the complexity of the new task (that interrupted the prior), and the longer the mind works on this new task; the longer and further it has to ‘back up’ on what was previously accomplished on the first task to, figuratively and literally, answer the question, ‘Now where was I?’

 

This is all happening on a near sub-conscious level, but doing so creates a notable and measurable loss of productivity and accuracy of process.

 

It’s the fundamental reason why people who claim to multi-task in a work environment are actually less totally efficient over time than the person who starts and completes each task as it comes to them.

 

[Quinn]

I've got to go with Ken on this one; based on my experiences. To take it back to motorcycles, do you remember learning to ride? All your concentration was focused on balancing, steering, braking. As these things became more automatic, you started to scan around for other things; like road surface, rear view mirrors, deer; now, you're multi-tasking. Do you remember having to remind yourself to look in the mirrors periodically? I still remember the first time I discovered that I was riding "automatically" enough to read street names as I passed. In a car, of course, it's much worse; we're on auto-pilot a good portion of the time. This is what can be called multi-tasking. It's really just scanning from one focus to another and back. On commutes, it's the same route, same traffic patterns, a lot of the same people even. There are no flying monkeys throwing rocks, no gaping holes opening up to swallow unwary cars, and no logs with alligators on them. If there were, we'd all pay closer attention.

 

 

[Ken H.]

I've got to go with Ken on this one; based on my experiences. To take it back to motorcycles, do you remember learning to ride? All your concentration was focused on balancing, steering, braking. As these things became more automatic, you started to scan around for other things; like road surface, rear view mirrors, deer; now, you're multi-tasking. Do you remember having to remind yourself to look in the mirrors periodically? I still remember the first time I discovered that I was riding "automatically" enough to read street names as I passed. In a car, of course, it's much worse; we're on auto-pilot a good portion of the time. This is what can be called multi-tasking. It's really just scanning from one focus to another and back. On commutes, it's the same route, same traffic patterns, a lot of the same people even. There are no flying monkeys throwing rocks, no gaping holes opening up to swallow unwary cars, and no logs with alligators on them. If there were, we'd all pay closer attention.

 

Just to kind of keep from derailing, there are indeed tasks that through repetition move to a more (but not actual) subconscious effort, walking being a blatantly obvious example. Most of us don’t have to think about how to do it more much. These are tasks that are truly repetitive in nature, having little, if any, variation in their execution. (Hardly what operating a vehicle in a constantly changing environment is.)

 

But the studies I have seen, and antidotal evidence seems to support (in particular with the subject at hand; cell phones and driving) are about ongoing cognitive thought processes, not near subconscious (or actual for that matter e.g. – your heart beating) activities. The human mind is incapable of thinking about two things truly simultaneously.

 

When one activity (e.g. - talking on a cell phone) requires conscious effort (to process the conversation) it will always detract from another activity requiring conscious effort (receiving sensory input, processing it, drawing a conclusion and engaging in a reaction to it, e.g. – driving a vehicle) to at least some measurable extent.

 

[Lets_Play_Two]

Just to kind of keep from derailing, there are indeed tasks that through repetition move to a more (but not actual) subconscious effort, walking being a blatantly obvious example. Most of us don’t have to think about how to do it more much. These are tasks that are truly repetitive in nature, having little, if any, variation in their execution. (Hardly what operating a vehicle in a constantly changing environment is.)

 

But the studies I have seen, and antidotal evidence seems to support (in particular with the subject at hand; cell phones and driving) are about ongoing cognitive thought processes, not near subconscious (or actual for that matter e.g. – your heart beating) activities. The human mind is incapable of thinking about two things truly simultaneously.

 

When one activity (e.g. - talking on a cell phone) requires conscious effort (to process the conversation) it will always detract from another activity requiring conscious effort (receiving sensory input, processing it, drawing a conclusion and engaging in a reaction to it, e.g. – driving a vehicle) to at least some measurable extent.

 

"Human multitasking - The ability of a person to perform more than one task at the same time"

 

How does this definition fit in to the discussion. It seems to me that "...perform more than one task at the same time" is different than dividing your conscious effort among tasks. I referee ice hockey. When I learned to skate and began to referee I had to think about skating and position and the flow of the game and big guys trying to run me over. I no longer require any conscious effort to skate nor to be where I should be on the ice. My conscious effort goes to the flow of the game, the other tasks are automatic. I just checked, I can wash dishes, talk to my wife and make scrambled eggs all at the same time (no relearning time required to move among tasks)!

 

I agree that talking on the cell phone diminishes reaction time and the extent of consciousness given to driving, but that is because both continue to require conscious effort. I believe that studies have shown that reaction time takes a big hit when talking on the cell phone. I also expect that reaction time is also diminished by any other activity engaged in while driving the car, including talking to passengers, turning around to smack one of the kids and deciding which new radio station to turn to, adjusting the rear view mirror, etc.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Some people can multi-task.

I hate to break the news to you, but psychology studies show there is no such thing.

I have also been involved in large group experiments that clearly show that multitasking indeed reduces effectiveness and efficiency. THe multitasking efficiency myth is dying.

[tallman]

Ken,

These wouldn't be the same psychologists who attributed hysteria to wandering organs, would it?

Or, perhaps the same psychologists who are on parole boards and are less accurate at predicting recidivism than flipping a coin?

"Multitasking" may not be the best term, as I said, it wasn't around when I started doing more than one thing at once.

Back then we were called hyperactive PITA's.

No pills to control or change the behavior (like today), instead one learned to channel and focus (perhaps at micro speeds subconsciously) on various tasks w/out getting lost.

Last time my reactions were checked they were 6 times faster than the teenaged athletes I worked with.

As to what "the" human mind is capable of, well, show me the "mind", please. Not the brain, the "mind".

Every one of us has a different "mind" regardless of physiological similarities of our brains.

Look for studies on bilingual children, and see how PET scans show they use their brain differently on certain tasks than monolinguistic children. The bi's actually use both hemispheres at times, unlike the mono's in some problem solving activities.

 

Ever smelled bacon while talking on the phone and watching TV?

If not simultaneous, the concurrency of the neurological responses would be nearly instantaneous.

At least close enough to be "at the same time".

 

If our minds were all the same, differential calculus/inorganic chemistry/painting etc. would be as easy for one person as another.

Some people have organic brain damage, yet they are capable esoteric and theoretical thought.

Some people have no brain damage, yet can't do that.

The "mind" that saw David in the block of stone is certainly similar to the mind tha cast the Thinker. Both works of art demonstrating sculpture at the highest levels, yet I would imagine they had somewhat different outlooks on life, death, life after death, and other issues.

I believe in the concept of doing one thing, do it well, then go on. No problem with that.

But I know that I am capable of that, and more.

You may disagree. I've no problem with that. But don't expect me to swallow the pablum from psych's without question.

I've seen people stop their hearts, raise and lower external body temperature, demonstrate exceptional luck (ESP) at identifying colors, shapes, numbers.

I've had an experience where several people saw me over a thousand miles from where I actually was at a moment I nearly died.

I don't pretend to know all the answers.

I don't even know the right questions to ask.

But the human mind, IMO, is capable of so much more than many would seem to want to accept.

A question might be, why?

Why would people so readily accept limitations on the greatest organ(ism) in existence today?

Not me.

I believe that we are capable of great things.

 

 

 

[russell_bynum]

Riding a motorcycle requires doing multiple things "at once". balance, throttle, front brake, rear brake, etc...all of that has to be worked at the same time while also gauging the traction on the road, reading clues in the road and terrain to figure out where the road goes next, picking and executing your line, etc.

 

Obviously it is possible to do multiple things "at the same time" (yes, I realize that we're probably really only doing one thing at a time and swapping tasks in and out on the fly) and do them all reasonably well.

 

IMO, the key is focus....you always have to keep the most important task at the highest priority. In flying, the saying is "Aviate, then navigate, then communicate". In other words...don't be so focused on figuring out where you are and talking to ATC that you fly the airplane into the ground.

 

My hunch is that the reason people have problems with driving and talking on the phone is because they are not focusing on driving as their top priority. As such, they don't make good decisions about when it might not be a good idea to be on the phone in the first place, and they don't do well at tuning out the conversation when they need to put more focus on driving for a while.

 

Clearly there are situations where you can afford to be less than 100% focused on driving and in those situations, it might be perfectly acceptable to switch playlists on your iPod, talk on the phone, reach down and adjust the AC temperature knob, check your GPS, etc. As long as you keep in your head that you are driving first and doing everything else second, I don't see any problem with that.

 

And...some people might be much better at swapping tasks in and out of working memory than others. I remember riding from O'Hare to downtown Chicago with Kathy driving at rush hour. At one point, she was on the phone (not hands-free) and looking something up on her notepad). I was a bit anxious about that at first until I realized that not only was she still maintaining good lane position and spacing with the other cars, but she was even signaling and making logical lane changes to always have us in the lane that was moving the smoothest. Clearly, she has the ability to do all of those things "at the same time" and do all of them reasonably well. I couldn't do that, and I wouldn't try, but just because I can't do it doesn't mean nobody else can.

 

That's why I don't like these sweeping bans. The problem isn't cell phones, it is people who aren't making driving their top priority when they're driving. Rather than throwing in more stupid laws that don't really solve any problems, why not work on the root cause?

[tallman]

Well said.

Sort of like some people trying to post and think at the same time.

The laws are already there.

If you do a no no because you were on the phone, there is a law already in place to deal with it.

I see the driving issue as akin to a discusssion a while back about the differences between rights and privilege.

IMO, most Americans see driving as a right, and they feel entitled to do whatever they want to when driving. Some of them can't drive even without any other distractions.

I'm all for enforcement, and consequences. Serious consequences.

That would clear the roads of stupid driving faster than any new law.

A ban on cell phones, or a requirement to be hands free isn't needed if traffic situations created by those drivers who can't do both were dealt with quickly and Draconianly.

 

[russell_bynum]

A ban on cell phones, or a requirement to be hands free isn't needed if traffic situations created by those drivers who can't do both were dealt with quickly and Draconianly.

 

Yep. That's pretty much how I feel about most laws. Give people personal freedom, and then make the consequences for screwing up severe. Instead what we've done is created a nanny state where nobody is allowed to do anything, and when you screw up, you get a light slap on the wrist.

[AZgman]

Here in Kalifornia C-phones have been banned while driving (except hands free) for about a year. And this thursday, texting will be also.

Now if the LEO's in this area would just hang up THEIR phones and start writing citations maybe we could start balancing our budget.

 

Same could be said about Connecticut...

 

I have a "crackberry". 95% used for work, but if it rings while I'm driving, the call goes unanswered. It is really very easy to do, but you have to want to!

[russell_bynum]

It seems to me that the texting law is going to be very hard to enforce.

 

My blackberry is also my watch. Sometimes it is my music player, too. How is anyone going to be able to prove that I was reading/writing messages vs checking to see what time it is, or pulling up a different song?

 

Without a subpoena of my company's messaging logs (which would only work if I actually sent the message...if I was reading there's no log of that and if I was writing a message, all evidence of that could be erased in about 5 seconds with two clicks.) I don't see how they could ever prove that someone was texting/emailing rather than doing any of the plethora of other things that you can do with a mobile phone these days.

 

I predict that very few of these tickets that are contested will actually stick. Of course, for only a $20 fine, most people will just pay and be done with it rather than fighting it.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

I predict that very few of these tickets that are contested will actually stick. Of course, for only a $20 fine, most people will just pay and be done with it rather than fighting it.

 

Isn't that how it works for 'red light cameras' in many places? You keep the fine low enough and the penalties civil only (so they won't affect insurance rates) and people will just pay the fine to be done with it.

[T__]

It seems to me that the texting law is going to be very hard to enforce.

 

My blackberry is also my watch. Sometimes it is my music player, too. How is anyone going to be able to prove that I was reading/writing messages vs checking to see what time it is, or pulling up a different song?

 

Without a subpoena of my company's messaging logs (which would only work if I actually sent the message...if I was reading there's no log of that and if I was writing a message, all evidence of that could be erased in about 5 seconds with two clicks.) I don't see how they could ever prove that someone was texting/emailing rather than doing any of the plethora of other things that you can do with a mobile phone these days.

 

I predict that very few of these tickets that are contested will actually stick. Of course, for only a $20 fine, most people will just pay and be done with it rather than fighting it.

 

 

 

 

Russell, here in Michigan we have some local ordinances against texting or cell phone use while driving but no basic state law so the texting or cell phone use is a secondary offence.. The police can’t specifically pull you over & ticket you for texting or cell phones but can add those to other ticketable offences if you violated another state or local law while using a cell phone or blackberry..

 

Problem with this type of law it has the police looking for any reason to pull a cell phone user over so even a dirty license plate,, or lane change without a turn signal early enough,, or drifting a tire across a yellow line can get you two tickets-- one ticket to justify the original pull over then a second ticket for using a cell phone or texting while driving.. So even if you beat the texting or cell phone ticket you still have the more difficult to beat justification ticket..

 

Might not be a bad way to go because if you are not breaking any other basic driving or vehicle operational laws the texting or cell phone use probably isn’t hindering the drivers driving ability..

 

Twisty

 

[AdventurePoser]

This could rapidly change into a big-time bitch session, deservedly! Cell phones, ATV, guns, no-guns, welfare, etc. etc.

 

Don't forget synthetic v dino....

 

Steve in So Cal

[Green RT]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

Then I guess the issue of cell phones being a distraction is overblown. It is, in my opinion. Would people want conversations between people in the car outlawed? Absolutely not. From the OP: "...drinking coffee, messing with the kids, applying make-up, smoking, whatever." these things have gone on forever. I talk on my cell phone when driving my automatic transmission cage and I'm no more distracted than if I were talking to someone sitting next to me. I agree with those saying the problem is the increasingly discourteous people on the roadways.

 

Hands-free or not, I think there is a difference between talking on the phone while driving and talking to another passenger. Other passengers in the car can be aware of what is going on, but that doesn't appear to me to be all of it. I don't understand the psychology of it, but there does seem to be a difference between the awareness of one's surroundings when talking on the phone versus talking to someone else who is present. You can see it in drivers as well as in other people talking on the phone, as other poster's have noted.

 

This apparently has been confirmed in some studies Link.

[Boffin]

It seems to me that the texting law is going to be very hard to enforce.

 

My blackberry is also my watch. Sometimes it is my music player, too. How is anyone going to be able to prove that I was reading/writing messages vs checking to see what time it is, or pulling up a different song?

 

Without a subpoena of my company's messaging logs (which would only work if I actually sent the message...if I was reading there's no log of that and if I was writing a message, all evidence of that could be erased in about 5 seconds with two clicks.) I don't see how they could ever prove that someone was texting/emailing rather than doing any of the plethora of other things that you can do with a mobile phone these days.

 

I predict that very few of these tickets that are contested will actually stick. Of course, for only a $20 fine, most people will just pay and be done with it rather than fighting it.

 

In the UK the legislature got round that problem by making it illegal to hold a mobile telephone (or blackberry etc) whilst driving - even if it is turned off. Hands-free is allowed.

 

The penalty is a large fine and 6 points on your licence (12 = a ban).

 

 

The law has had almost no impact on phone use whilst driving.

 

Andy

[tallman]

I think some of us will look back and wish for the good old days.

If you want the "studies" to dictate how we drive, be prepared.

Neuroergonomic stuies show that "driving while listening", which is not limited to cell phone usage and caould include passenger conversation, radio, other auditory sources such as books on tape, MP3, etc, resulted in a decrease in activity in the area of the brain associated with driving.

So, those of you who want ot ban the cell phone, just remember, the logical extension is to prohibit all audio ("listening") sources of distraction to the driver.

 

Of course, like all good studies, this one involved 29 subjects.

I'm sure there was someone in that group just like you, or me...

[Ken H.]

"Human multitasking - The ability of a person to perform more than one task at the same time"

 

How does this definition fit in to the discussion. It seems to me that "...perform more than one task at the same time" is different than dividing your conscious effort among tasks. I referee ice hockey. When I learned to skate and began to referee I had to think about skating and position and the flow of the game and big guys trying to run me over. I no longer require any conscious effort to skate nor to be where I should be on the ice. My conscious effort goes to the flow of the game, the other tasks are automatic. I just checked, I can wash dishes, talk to my wife and make scrambled eggs all at the same time (no relearning time required to move among tasks)!

Ken,

These wouldn't be the same psychologists who attributed hysteria to wandering organs, would it?

Or, perhaps the same psychologists who are on parole boards and are less accurate at predicting recidivism than flipping a coin?

"Multitasking" may not be the best term, as I said, it wasn't around when I started doing more than one thing at once.

Riding a motorcycle requires doing multiple things "at once". balance, throttle, front brake, rear brake, etc...all of that has to be worked at the same time while also gauging the traction on the road, reading clues in the road and terrain to figure out where the road goes next, picking and executing your line, etc.

 

Obviously it is possible to do multiple things "at the same time" (yes, I realize that we're probably really only doing one thing at a time and swapping tasks in and out on the fly) and do them all reasonably well.

You guys are missing, or choosing to miss, an important qualifier – the inability to multitask is the inability to truly simultaneously do tasks that require cognitive thought processes. E.g. – carry on a conversation and make a decision at the same time.

 

Of course the mind/brain can control simultaneous things. I can type this without having to cognitively stop and think about where each and every key is on the keyboard. That’s because repetitive (and repetitive is the key word) learned activities the brain indeed moves out of the more cognitive areas to the near subconscious areas over time.

 

But, and it’s a big but, tasks requiring unique decisions each time, e.g. – reacting to a situation when operating a vehicle, no two situations are exactly alike, can never and are never relegated to the subconscious or near subconscious level. (Cell) phone conversations are the same way, each conversation is unique. And as such requires processing in the cognitively areas of the brain. And study after study has show we only process those singularly.

 

Now I believe in the scientific theory and that things can be studied, and through repetition of results valid conclusions can be drawn about what likely is and isn’t. If someone doesn’t believe in even that, and believes that somehow they (or any other) are exempt from the conclusions somehow have unique one-off built brain on the planet, and can indeed operate a vehicle while talking on a cell phone with absolutely no degradation of their ability to operate the vehicle, well I don’t know how to rebut that beyond, ‘We’ll just have to agree to disagree.’

 

I would encourage that person to let them self be studied though, because he/she would become a worldwide sensation in the world of psychology should it prove out to be true. Stranger things have happened I suppose.

 

[Ken H.]

I think some of us will look back and wish for the good old days.

If you want the "studies" to dictate how we drive, be prepared.

Neuroergonomic stuies show that "driving while listening", which is not limited to cell phone usage and caould include passenger conversation, radio, other auditory sources such as books on tape, MP3, etc, resulted in a decrease in activity in the area of the brain associated with driving.

So, those of you who want ot ban the cell phone, just remember, the logical extension is to prohibit all audio ("listening") sources of distraction to the driver.

“Dictate” or “understand?” Two very different words. Neither of which automatically leads to the other. Why the growing fear of understanding in the world?

[upflying]

It seems to me that the texting law is going to be very hard to enforce.

 

My blackberry is also my watch. Sometimes it is my music player, too. How is anyone going to be able to prove that I was reading/writing messages vs checking to see what time it is, or pulling up a different song?

 

Without a subpoena of my company's messaging logs (which would only work if I actually sent the message...if I was reading there's no log of that and if I was writing a message, all evidence of that could be erased in about 5 seconds with two clicks.) I don't see how they could ever prove that someone was texting/emailing rather than doing any of the plethora of other things that you can do with a mobile phone these days.

 

I predict that very few of these tickets that are contested will actually stick. Of course, for only a $20 fine, most people will just pay and be done with it rather than fighting it.

 

The base fine is $20. Add court costs and penalties and the fine is $95. Yes, texting is hard to prove. That's why I slowly lane split cars stopped at a light. I look in each car to see if the driver has a CF in their hands. Stopped traffic is an excellent place to watch for violators. Hands free means hands free and a CF cannot be in your hands. If I see you typing away, great but if it's just in your hands you get a ticket either way.

[Lets_Play_Two]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

Then I guess the issue of cell phones being a distraction is overblown. It is, in my opinion. Would people want conversations between people in the car outlawed? Absolutely not. From the OP: "...drinking coffee, messing with the kids, applying make-up, smoking, whatever." these things have gone on forever. I talk on my cell phone when driving my automatic transmission cage and I'm no more distracted than if I were talking to someone sitting next to me. I agree with those saying the problem is the increasingly discourteous people on the roadways.

 

Hands-free or not, I think there is a difference between talking on the phone while driving and talking to another passenger. Other passengers in the car can be aware of what is going on, but that doesn't appear to me to be all of it. I don't understand the psychology of it, but there does seem to be a difference between the awareness of one's surroundings when talking on the phone versus talking to someone else who is present. You can see it in drivers as well as in other people talking on the phone, as other poster's have noted.

 

This apparently has been confirmed in some studies Link.

 

"...a driver conversing with a passenger is not as impaired a driver talking on a cell phone,” (emphasis added)!!

[tallman]

Ken,

Do some research on the "subjects" who volunteer for these studies.

Are they representative of the "average person"?

Is there such a manifestation?

 

What I find funny about these threads is the 180 degree turn some posters make depending on whether the topic is cell phone usage, drinking (having just a couple then riding doesn't affect them), speeding, (I'm an excellent rider who practices skill set XYZ therefore...), and how much faith/reliance is/isn't placed on data/statistics.

My favorite is the increase in accidnets resulting in death among riders recently.

Why would the data from those studies be invalid, even though they are based on thousands of incidents, yet a cell phone study w/only 50 participants is valid?

Just wondering...

 

Now, your response doesn't answer my question.

Would you please point me to a sudy where a psychologist can show you the "mind".

Best wishes.

[motoguy128]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

 

Before cell hones, the same bad driving habits could be witnessed when the driver was seen turning their head and completely engaged in a conversation with the passenger. I remember myself and my dad complaining about it on family trips in the 80's.

 

The increase in traffic and percentage of vehicles engaged in conversation has increased, making the problem more noticeable. But i do agree that cell phones are worse and that hands free makes little difference.

 

Form another thread... I think it follows a pattern of self indulgence and following ones self interests as it relates to capitalism in western cultures. People are more involved in ones own lives and far less in the the welfare of otheres.

[upflying]

Motoguy128 wrote "Form another thread... I think it follows a pattern of self indulgence and following ones self interests as it relates to capitalism in western cultures. People are more involved in ones own lives and far less in the the welfare of otheres".

 

Bravo, I've seen it in my life and comparing it with that of my ancestors. My relatives had little assets but they did have family. Family ties and values were their most important asset.

Today people are more interested in themselves and what something means to them. Interestingly immigrants from "developing nations" still have those strong family connections which are missing in the lives of selfish Americans.

 

 

[onmyrt]

LEO's are exempt from the cell phone law.

 

I'd like to know what the rational is behind that?

 

And what other laws are LEO's exempt from.......

[Ken H.]

Hands-free or not, I think there is a difference between talking on the phone while driving and talking to another passenger. Other passengers in the car can be aware of what is going on, but that doesn't appear to me to be all of it. I don't understand the psychology of it, but there does seem to be a difference between the awareness of one's surroundings when talking on the phone versus talking to someone else who is present. You can see it in drivers as well as in other people talking on the phone, as other poster's have noted.

 

This apparently has been confirmed in some studies Link.

 

"...a driver conversing with a passenger is not as impaired a driver talking on a cell phone,” (emphasis added)!!

Yes, and it’s not fully understood. But as mentioned by someone else in this thread, it’s thought to be at least in part due to the dislocation of your thought thread/process from where you are physically located when engaged in a (cell) phone conversation with someone elsewhere. Your mind tends to try to displace to the location of the person you are conversing with. It attempts to reconstruct a pseudo person-to-person conversation. Which after all, from an evolutionary perspective, humans are much more familiar with. Long distance conversations being a very new concept in the big picture.

 

Thus further drawing your attention away from your actual surroundings. An effect that is lesser when engaging in a conversation with someone in the same vehicle as you.

 

But as most any parent can tell you, conversations within a vehicle can be just as effectively distract your attention from the task at hand too!

 

[Ken H.]

Now, your response doesn't answer my question.

Would you please point me to a sudy where a psychologist can show you the "mind".

Best wishes.

Just because we don't understand fully how something works, doesn't mean we can't observe, study, document, and draw conclusions about what it does.

[upflying]

LEO's are exempt from the cell phone law.

 

I'd like to know what the rational is behind that?

 

And what other laws are LEO's exempt from.......

 

LEO's do not legally have to wear seat belts although department policy often requires them to be fastened. Garbage truck and newspaper delivery people also do not have to wear seat belts. Ambulance crews and fire fighters are also permitted to use cellular phones while driving. Truck drivers operating vehicles weighing over 26,001 lbs can also use a hands-on cellular phone while driving.

[onmyrt]

LEO's are exempt from the cell phone law.

 

I'd like to know what the rational is behind that?

 

And what other laws are LEO's exempt from.......

 

LEO's do not legally have to wear seat belts although department policy often requires them to be fastened. Garbage truck and newspaper delivery people also do not have to wear seat belts. Ambulance crews and fire fighters are also permitted to use cellular phones while driving. Truck drivers operating vehicles weighing over 26,001 lbs can also use a hands-on cellular phone while driving.

 

Very interesting. The seat belt exemptions I'm OK with as they only endanger that driver, but if it turns out that CF usage is as distracting as driving while intoxicated and innocent people are being endangered by those that are 'exempt', then I think it would be inexcusable to allow that to continue.

 

Thanks for the info.

[tallman]

Now, your response doesn't answer my question.

Would you please point me to a sudy where a psychologist can show you the "mind".

Best wishes.

Just because we don't understand fully how something works, doesn't mean we can't observe, study, document, and draw conclusions about what it does.

 

 

Ken, now you're talking about faith.

I'm talking about "the mind".

How do you know that what they are "observing (how?) studying, documenting and drawing conclusions" about is "the mind".

We don't understand ow it works, agreed.

We can't observe "it", we may see the output or result of activity by the mind, but that isn't studying "it".

That, my friend is one of the great mysteries of life (as we know it) and not something a psycho/researcher

can show you in a lab.

I go back to basic principles, if it can't be shown, and reproduced in an experimental setting, time after time, with the same outcome, is it science?

Just because I can find a plane crash doesn't mean I can build an airplane, understand principles of flight, design and build an internal combustion engine, produce a source of energy to fly it, creat an artificial environment to exist safely in it at altitude, or operate it.

Best wishes.

[Twisties]

Now, your response doesn't answer my question.

Would you please point me to a sudy where a psychologist can show you the "mind".

Best wishes.

Just because we don't understand fully how something works, doesn't mean we can't observe, study, document, and draw conclusions about what it does.

 

 

Ken, now you're talking about faith.

I'm talking about "the mind".

How do you know that what they are "observing (how?) studying, documenting and drawing conclusions" about is "the mind".

We don't understand ow it works, agreed.

We can't observe "it", we may see the output or result of activity by the mind, but that isn't studying "it".

That, my friend is one of the great mysteries of life (as we know it) and not something a psycho/researcher

can show you in a lab.

I go back to basic principles, if it can't be shown, and reproduced in an experimental setting, time after time, with the same outcome, is it science?

Just because I can find a plane crash doesn't mean I can build an airplane, understand principles of flight, design and build an internal combustion engine, produce a source of energy to fly it, creat an artificial environment to exist safely in it at altitude, or operate it.

Best wishes.

 

Jeez Tim, you are good for laugh.

[Boone60]

LEO's are exempt from the cell phone law.

 

I'd like to know what the rational is behind that?

 

And what other laws are LEO's exempt from.......

 

 

"Car 41 to courthouse security"

 

"Courthouse securtiy, go ahead car 41"

 

"Car 41, We'll be at your door in 5 minutes with Blank (notorious gangster and highly dangerous multiple murderer) for a trial in Judge Hammer's courtroom C."

 

"10-4 Courthouse securtiy clear."

 

Now if this killer has any friends waiting for him with a scanner, they'll know exactly where and when he will be showing up.

[Lets_Play_Two]

Hands-free or not, I think there is a difference between talking on the phone while driving and talking to another passenger. Other passengers in the car can be aware of what is going on, but that doesn't appear to me to be all of it. I don't understand the psychology of it, but there does seem to be a difference between the awareness of one's surroundings when talking on the phone versus talking to someone else who is present. You can see it in drivers as well as in other people talking on the phone, as other poster's have noted.

 

This apparently has been confirmed in some studies Link.

 

"...a driver conversing with a passenger is not as impaired a driver talking on a cell phone,” (emphasis added)!!

Yes, and it’s not fully understood. But as mentioned by someone else in this thread, it’s thought to be at least in part due to the dislocation of your thought thread/process from where you are physically located when engaged in a (cell) phone conversation with someone elsewhere. Your mind tends to try to displace to the location of the person you are conversing with. It attempts to reconstruct a pseudo person-to-person conversation. Which after all, from an evolutionary perspective, humans are much more familiar with. Long distance conversations being a very new concept in the big picture.

 

Thus further drawing your attention away from your actual surroundings. An effect that is lesser when engaging in a conversation with someone in the same vehicle as you.

 

But as most any parent can tell you, conversations within a vehicle can be just as effectively distract your attention from the task at hand too!

 

My point is that talking to a passenger causes impairment...just not as much. How much impairment is too much?

[T__]

Very interesting. The seat belt exemptions I'm OK with as they only endanger that driver, but if it turns out that CF usage is as distracting as driving while intoxicated and innocent people are being endangered by those that are 'exempt', then I think it would be inexcusable to allow that to continue.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Michael, it is a difficult thing to understand the reasoning behind the law but on the other hand it might not be a big deal as far as a danger to the public goes..

 

A few years ago myself & some of my fellow engineers volunteered for a safety study to help our future products development group understand impaired driving & it’s effects on safe vehicle handling so they could try to design better vehicle systems to sense impaired driving & better vehicle systems to improve early warning of impending crash or pedestrian/object collision..

 

We were placed in instrumented automobiles that were equipped to measure lane position,, steering wheel input vs vehicle attitude,, video & audio of the driver in the vehicle & of the what the driver would see looking out the front & side windows,, brake & accelerator position,, braking forces,, wheel slippage,, lots or other parameters..

 

Then placed in traffic (all on a closed coarse with controlled situations),, pop out pedestrians,, foam cars painted to look real popping out of hidden intersections,, genite ice simulation,, decreasing radius high speed turns,, stoplights that went from yellow to green then to red.. Some that quickly went green back to red,, lots of interesting accident avoidance situations..

 

We drove the course un impaired,, then with cell phones & talking,, typing a series of numbers into the cell phones (no texting though),, reading back info showing on the phone screen,, etc.. Then we did hands free cell phones with complicated problems to solve coming over the cell phone.. Then the fun part,, a few drinks then the same course..

 

We all learned something from the study.. Our driving ability all degraded measurably from the unimpaired original base line.. The thing that stood out to me was that all of the engineering personal involved still did much better on the course even in our worst impaired state than any of the walk in people invited from the general public did on their unimpaired base line run..

 

Turns out they never used the data derived form the engineering personal involved but instead used all the data from the general public.. There was some follow up to determine if we were cheating or maybe a genuine interest in why the engineering personal did so much better than the general public.. What they didn’t originally understand is that all the engineering personal had been doing high speed limited handling & max G evaluations for many years with highly instrumented automobiles full of recorders & computers so were used to driving with one eye on the road/situation & one eye on the recording equipment.. We all also had a good solid background in precise vehicle control & precise braking control in limited handling situations.. So vehicle handling in emergency situations was mostly subconscious & from muscle memory for most of the engineering participants..

 

I guess what I’m getting at here is well trained professional LEO’s or emergency responders that have a solid vehicle handling back ground & use the equipment like cell phones daily while operating their vehicles are probably still better at avoiding potential driving problems than most general public would be.. They are allowed to exceed the basic speed limits under some situations (that is also a dangerous situation),, allowed to carry guns in places where the general public isn’t,, etc..

I guess if the guy that flys the multi engine airplane I’m on is allowed to talk on the radio while landing the plane in a cross wind on an icy runway is allowed to continue my local LEO should be allowed to use a cell phone while driving..

 

Twisty

 

[tallman]

Now, your response doesn't answer my question.

Would you please point me to a sudy where a psychologist can show you the "mind".

Best wishes.

Just because we don't understand fully how something works, doesn't mean we can't observe, study, document, and draw conclusions about what it does.

 

 

Ken, now you're talking about faith.

I'm talking about "the mind".

How do you know that what they are "observing (how?) studying, documenting and drawing conclusions" about is "the mind".

We don't understand ow it works, agreed.

We can't observe "it", we may see the output or result of activity by the mind, but that isn't studying "it".

That, my friend is one of the great mysteries of life (as we know it) and not something a psycho/researcher

can show you in a lab.

I go back to basic principles, if it can't be shown, and reproduced in an experimental setting, time after time, with the same outcome, is it science?

Just because I can find a plane crash doesn't mean I can build an airplane, understand principles of flight, design and build an internal combustion engine, produce a source of energy to fly it, creat an artificial environment to exist safely in it at altitude, or operate it.

Best wishes.

 

Jeez Tim, you are good for laugh.

 

Jeez, Ken.

Still can't answer my question?

That's OK, you're not alone.

 

[upflying]

LEO's are exempt from the cell phone law.

 

I'd like to know what the rational is behind that?

 

And what other laws are LEO's exempt from.......

 

 

"Car 41 to courthouse security"

 

"Courthouse securtiy, go ahead car 41"

 

"Car 41, We'll be at your door in 5 minutes with Blank (notorious gangster and highly dangerous multiple murderer) for a trial in Judge Hammer's courtroom C."

 

"10-4 Courthouse securtiy clear."

 

Now if this killer has any friends waiting for him with a scanner, they'll know exactly where and when he will be showing up.

Most agencies now use a Mobile Data Terminal for such covert communication. Now that you mention it, many officers have typed on a computer keyboard while driving for many years. Yes, there have been LEO collisions involving MDT use.

[Ken H.]

Jeez Tim, you are good for laugh.

Jeez, Ken.

Still can't answer my question?

That's OK, you're not alone.

That wasn’t my reply, it was Jan’s.

 

 

 

[tallman]

Ken

Mea culpa.

I owe you one.

Short version.

We can fabricate and/or transplant hearts, lungs, kidney, corneas, and more.

We can use gene therapy to improve blindness.

We can do so very much to improve the health of our species.

But, we can't do all of that with the brain, yet.

When/if we do, it will open an interesting door to the human condition.

Until then, I believe that you and I are distinct individual with comparable organic makeup

But, your brain is different than mine in how it functions, just as a 'Busa and a dirt bike are similar in composition, but differ in use and performance.

Also, your "mind" is different than mine. Neither of ours is "better", although there will be quantifiable differences in performance.

You get, and understand many things that I don't.

I have different experiences than you.

Our brain/mind meld is different from each other, IMO.

From my POV, that means that some of us will act and behave differently from each other in the same given circumstances.

How distracted I get or you get will vary based on when, where, and how.

You may disagree, but I'm really saying I think you are bettter than what the psych's say at doing certain tasks.

Not because you are smarter, or more intelligent than the average bear (although you very well may be), but because you use your brain in a different way from anyone else, and probably very different from many of the subjects in these studies.

I wonder how many of them could ride through a technical road in the cold and dark, even w/out any distractions, as well as you do?

How many of them could field strip a beemer, and even better, put it back together correctly.

Are some people easily distracted?

Yes.

Does their performance on various tasks deteriorate under those conditions?

Yes.

But I still don't believe that all people in all situations will be as distracted as some others are.

My .03

Best wishes.

 

[russell_bynum]

Hands free means hands free and a CF cannot be in your hands. If I see you typing away, great but if it's just in your hands you get a ticket either way.

 

Can you show me chapter and verse of the law where it says I'm not allowed to hold a cell phone in my hand?