Does it piss you off when people drive and use a cellphone at the same time?

[builder]

What Tori touched lighty upon, is the real point of my posting that link. Drunk or not, the people that dismally failed this test were sober phone drivers.

 

You want to multitask on the road, effectively endangering people you don't even know, then you are as probably percussive on society as a very drunk driver.

 

The test pilots on the booze, as you so vehemently decry, weren't drunk at all. Yet the sober phone users tested as being more at risk of having an accident.

 

Get it now you slow fucktards. ????

[ToriAllen]

I think its interesting that only 4 out of 50 states agree with you Tori.

It is a fairly new issue. The states and areas with the largest population will address it first. It isn't that only four of fifty agree, because I'm sure there are still legislators that have not put the issue to a public vote yet. Then you have to ask about which states have put the issue to a vote and how the vote was split. What were the percentages? Therefore, with so little information, I do not find it all that interesting. However, I do realize there are people who are not interested in the whole story. I think we call them Democrats.

[ToriAllen]

From what I read in the Harvard study (I would trust the Harvard people alot quicker then I would the people from Utah) its far from a clear cut issue.

As for trusting one set of researchers over another simply because of the college they are associated with...All of our medical advancements and scientific advancements did not come from Ivy League schools alone. Other colleges are just as equipped to do research as the Ivy League. If I read the article correctly, Harvard did not even do an experiment of their own, they did a 'risk assessment' based on studies that other people at other colleges did. According to your logic, their study is flawed because it is based on the studies and experiments of others (perhaps even some people from Utah).

[jokersarewild]

What Tori touched lighty upon, is the real point of my posting that link. Drunk or not, the people that dismally failed this test were sober phone drivers.

 

You want to multitask on the road, effectively endangering people you don't even know, then you are as probably percussive on society as a very drunk driver.

 

The test pilots on the booze, as you so vehemently decry, weren't drunk at all. Yet the sober phone users tested as being more at risk of having an accident.

 

Get it now you slow fucktards. ????

After looking around at various variations of this story, I found this user comment:

 

Overall, traffic fatalities have decreased over the last two years, due to several things - decrease in driving, decrease in driving on secondary roads as our population becomes less rural and more urban, crash engineering, highway engineering and improved trauma care.

 

Drunk driving enforcement has increased steadily, resulting in more arrests, fewer drunk drivers on the road and, thus, fewer accidents.

 

Most cell phone accident are low speed, intersection accidents, which do not result in fatalities. Generally, most accidents are intersection accidents that occur at speeds below the maximum freeway speeds in their respective jurisdictions.

 

Finally, generalized statistics that horrendous claims - such as the number of people who are killed while driving and talking at the same time are extrapolations and impossibly large. In the Utah study, they considered very few people. So, it really has only anecdotal importance, except to someone with an agenda - "proving" that driving while talking on your cell phone leads to a lot of fatalities.

 

Figures don't lie, liars figure...

 

Oh, then I Googled the Cell Phone Death Statistics, and found this story: http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html

 

If you read it, it makes some odd claims. But the funny part: 20 yr. old drivers are not a good measure of driving safely, because they have a need for speed and like doing crazy shit. And I seriously doubt that talking to a passenger makes you more impared then if you are over .08 BAC, but that's just my take.

 

Now we have to talk about the other side of this: http://www.madd.org/stats/10212

 

What I find funny is that in about 75% of the drunk driving fatalities, the drivers were over the limit. Which would mean, in fact, the study builder quoted, was wrong. Even if you don't count the statistics where the drivers were over .08 BAC, drunk drivers still killed almost 1.5 times the amount of drivers talking on their cell phones.

 

Don't you find that odd if you're so right, builder?

[ToriAllen]

After looking around at various variations of this story, I found this user comment:

 

 

 

Oh, then I Googled the Cell Phone Death Statistics, and found this story: http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html

 

If you read it, it makes some odd claims. But the funny part: 20 yr. old drivers are not a good measure of driving safely, because they have a need for speed and like doing crazy shit. And I seriously doubt that talking to a passenger makes you more impared then if you are over .08 BAC, but that's just my take.

 

Now we have to talk about the other side of this: http://www.madd.org/stats/10212

 

What I find funny is that in about 75% of the drunk driving fatalities, the drivers were over the limit. Which would mean, in fact, the study builder quoted, was wrong. Even if you don't count the statistics where the drivers were over .08 BAC, drunk drivers still killed almost 1.5 times the amount of drivers talking on their cell phones.

 

Don't you find that odd if you're so right, builder?

All that research would mean something if the study Builder quoted dealt with fatalities. The study was talking about the likelihood of getting in an accident, not cause a dead in that accident. Hmm, would I rather get in a low speed intersection accident or not get in an accident at all. Again, we are not arguing the fact that there are other distractions or that other things cause accidents. I have said that cell phones are distracting and increase the risk of getting in an accident, and so far every study or quote, even those that are being used by opposition, have agreed with that. Cell phone use in the car is an unnecessary risk.

[snafu]

 

You seen to be missing the point of the article. These people were on the line between sober and drunk. You can get taking in for .08 at the discretion of the policeman, if he feels you can’t drive at that level of intoxication. Not quite as alert as sober, but not too impaired to drive. Since the point of the study is driving, they can’t really have people who are completely plastered participate. The mental image of that is hilarious. Cars driving in circles, or going the wrong way, or just sitting passed out behind the wheel. Even if everyone in the study was sober, cell phone use still caused more accidents, but these people weren’t completely sober either.

Even the articles by people who support cell phone use state that they are a distraction and increase the risk of accidents.

 

I was about to debate this but I did some research. I thought 0.08 was about a half of a beer. Not even close to being drunk.

According to this:

http://www.beertown.org/education/calc/bac/bac.aspx

I can hammer down 4 Alaskan Winter Ambers (6.2%) http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php

in one hour and be under the leagal limit. Something doesn’t sound right. But after four of those in one hour I think I would be impaired. I will concede.

[TerroristHater]

I was about to debate this but I did some research. I thought 0.08 was about a half of a beer. Not even close to being drunk.

According to this:

http://www.beertown.org/education/calc/bac/bac.aspx

I can hammer down 4 Alaskan Winter Ambers (6.2%) http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php

in one hour and be under the leagal limit. Something doesn

[jokersarewild]

All that research would mean something if the study Builder quoted dealt with fatalities. The study was talking about the likelihood of getting in an accident, not cause a dead in that accident. Hmm, would I rather get in a low speed intersection accident or not get in an accident at all. Again, we are not arguing the fact that there are other distractions or that other things cause accidents. I have said that cell phones are distracting and increase the risk of getting in an accident, and so far every study or quote, even those that are being used by opposition, have agreed with that. Cell phone use in the car is an unnecessary risk.

I will conceed that using a cell phone in a car is an unnecessary risk.

 

708,000 persons are injured in alcohol related crashes(each year)

http://www.duipictures.com/statisti.htm

 

(Speaking of safety, I believe it was/is builder who lets his nieces ride around in his Jeep(?), in the front, with the airbags on...which, we conclusively proved, was not safe. Then builder threatened to punch me in the face...)

[ToriAllen]

In addition to these factors, there is also the question of tolerance.

Some people can down a case of Coors and be just fine whereas some people are drunk as a skunk after two 12oz cans of beer. When I used to drink socially I would useless get very buzzed around the forth can...and totally drunk after the sixth can. My best friend can do two sixpacks and barely develop a buzz.

My in-laws are functional Alcoholics, I think that is type A. Anyway, they drink beer as if it were coke, tea, or water. I'm not sure I have ever seen them without a beer in their hands. They have built up a tolerance for it, but that doesn't mean the alcohol doesn't show. I would say it is more of a permanent drunk state that they have adjusted to. I still wouldn

[RoyalOrleans]

My in-laws are functional Alcoholics, I think that is type A. Anyway, they drink beer as if it were coke, tea, or water. I'm not sure I have ever seen them without a beer in their hands. They have built up a tolerance for it, but that doesn't mean the alcohol doesn't show. I would say it is more of a permanent drunk state that they have adjusted to. I still wouldn

[builder]

(Speaking of safety, I believe it was/is builder who lets his nieces ride around in his Jeep(?), in the front, with the airbags on...which, we conclusively proved, was not safe. Then builder threatened to punch me in the face...)

 

I don't drive a Jeep. It's a Centurian tank. My nieces are ten years old, and one sits up front, in the bucket seat, with seatbelt on, likewise with the other one in the back.

 

Your point was?

[Lethalfind]

As for trusting one set of researchers over another simply because of the college they are associated with...All of our medical advancements and scientific advancements did not come from Ivy League schools alone. Other colleges are just as equipped to do research as the Ivy League. If I read the article correctly, Harvard did not even do an experiment of their own, they did a 'risk assessment' based on studies that other people at other colleges did. According to your logic, their study is flawed because it is based on the studies and experiments of others (perhaps even some people from Utah).

 

ummm Harvard UNIVERSITY...definetly NOT a college. THERE is a big difference.

 

As for Utah...Look into the norms for people in Utah and come back and tell me there isn't any difference between them and us.

[ToriAllen]

ummm Harvard UNIVERSITY...definetly NOT a college. THERE is a big difference.

Running out of valid points so now you

[Lethalfind]

Running out of valid points so now you

[angie]

I think the reality is, you don't NEED to talk on your cell phone while driving. It is a selfish WANT.

I leave my phone on 24/7, for the simple fact that, if my brother calls, regardless of where I am, I will PULL OVER and take the call. If Isabel is at my Mom's, I will PULL OVER and answer the call. Other than that, the phone goes ignored. I will say, I used to drive and talk on my phone, but I can drive stick, smoke a cigarette, and talk at the same time, none of which I do while driving anymore (well except drive stick). I am good at multi-tasking. But I have grown up a bit in the last few years and it is just an unnecessary distraction, and I don't need to talk. I don't care how good a driver you THINK you are. It is still a distraction that isn't a necessity to live. That phone call can wait the 20 minutes it's going to take you to get somewhere.

[builder]

Bravo, Angie.

 

Selfish fucks who can't seem to differentiate between current responsibilities, meaning driving a car, and answering a phone call that will wait if they don't answer it, is the real issue here.

[ToriAllen]

The reality is that people are going to talk on their cell phones...its that simple. You fancy yourself a changer of humans minds and your not...

Persuasion only works on those who do not have preformed strong views about an issue, but I’m sure you already knew that because you know everything. It is also less likely to work on people who feel what they are doing is wrong, because any admission that the other side has a valid point is an admission that they are doing something dangerous or stupid, and that is not a very common thing to admit.

 

You come across in a case like this that you know more then everyone, even people who are doing the studies which is amazingly arrogant.

Actually, the studies have agreed with me so far. In fact, of the two of us, you are the only one who is trying to discredit a study just because it doesn’t agree with you…I bet you do it again further down in this post.

 

NO MATTER what is said, its your personal pet peeve and you will never change your mind no matter what information is present. I don't care to bother trying anymore.

Perhaps if you presented information that didn’t agree with me, I would be more inclined to change my mind. That’s right there is not study that shows cell phone use is not a distraction, and the closest you could find was one saying it wasn’t as bad as reaching for something in the floorboard(duh) and one that say more studies needed to be done.

 

You clearly haven't read the information available in depth because your only seeing the comments that make your opinion look good.

I did read it. I must have missed the part where they said cell phones weren’t distracting. Was it right after the part where they said cell phones were distracting?

 

As for Utah, I don't have to substiate anything about those people. I used to have access to confidential information on stats of mental illness, chemical dependence, child abuse and such. They were above average. The most sick and twisted stories came out of Utah. The kind that would make me so sick I was unable to eat lunch after having to hear them. The University of Utah (they call it Uni) has a very popular Pysch ward but other then that the place is a fuckin joke.

Utah the state? So, because you have heard stories about an entire state, that really have nothing to do with the University itself, you are claiming that any study done there is invalid. This has nothing to do with the fact that it blows your case to shit…You know more than them, but you aren’t arrogant.

Do I care if you believe that?? NO.

If you knew I wouldn’t believe it anyway, then why bother to post it.

You have to believe that any study coming out of Utah is as good as what comes out of Harvard.

Harvard did not do an experiment. Now had they recreated the Utah experiment and gotten different results then you might have a leg to stand on. Harvard analyzed information gathered from experiments done at other Universities. The scientific community is very open with its information. Science progresses more rapidly because Harvard and other schools like it play off of studies done at other places. They are not closed off from the rest of the scientific world, and they are not above the rest of the scientific world.

 

As for unnecessary distractions...of course they are not necessary but there is alot of stuff going going on in cars that is not necessary but that doesn't mean it should be or will be made illegal.

So does this mean you are agreeing that they are an unnecessary distraction…

If your feeling good about Builder being on your little side...

My wittle side…LOL. It that your way of trying to belittle me? I’ve already told you, that crap doesn’t work with me, and it just makes you look like your drowning in your own bullshit.

Don't, the only reason he is is because I am on the opposite side from you. His goal is to feel he bothers me...which is funny in the extreme. He bothers me in that he makes me laugh so much at his complete lack of integrity and of course wondering whats its like to live as a sad, pathetic bombed out teacher turned odd jobs man.

I actually hadn’t thought that much about who was or wasn’t ‘on my little side’. It makes no never mind to me who does and who doesn’t agree with me. Had he came in with the crap you did, I would be debating him right now. Obviously is does matter to you though. It does seem a bit egocentric of you to think Builder could be devoid of having an opinion accept to oppose you. It could be that he feels this way about cell phones because he lives in a place where they are already banned. I suppose you didn’t notice his contribution to the thread before we took it over.

[ToriAllen]

I think the reality is, you don't NEED to talk on your cell phone while driving. It is a selfish WANT.

I leave my phone on 24/7, for the simple fact that, if my brother calls, regardless of where I am, I will PULL OVER and take the call. If Isabel is at my Mom's, I will PULL OVER and answer the call. Other than that, the phone goes ignored. I will say, I used to drive and talk on my phone, but I can drive stick, smoke a cigarette, and talk at the same time, none of which I do while driving anymore (well except drive stick). I am good at multi-tasking. But I have grown up a bit in the last few years and it is just an unnecessary distraction, and I don't need to talk. I don't care how good a driver you THINK you are. It is still a distraction that isn't a necessity to live. That phone call can wait the 20 minutes it's going to take you to get somewhere.

Oh, no. Watch out Leathalfind. Angie is out to get you, too.