Do you wear a "blue tooth" (phone headset)?

[darin3]

Talking while driving? Pfff... I am a master of typing-while-driving.

Edited August 7, 2007 by darin3

[i_am_the_swammi]

i'm not sure what makes you think so. here's an interesting article...

 

""Our recommendation is that you should not talk on the phone while driving, whether it's a hand-held or hand-free device," Tyson said. "We realize that a lot of people believe that they can multi-task, and in a lot of situations they probably can, but it's that moment when you need your full attention, and it's not there because you are busy talking, that you increase the likelihood that you are going to be involved in a crash," he said."

 

Bingo...thanks for the link, Az...hopefully, some of the folks here that beleive they can do it all will realize they can't, before its to late for themsleves or, god forbid, someone else.

 

Funny how the only contrarian view in the unbiased article comes from an "industry spokesperson"...imagine that.

[twiley]

Talking while driving? Pfff... I am a master of typing-while-driving.

 

I've tried that a few times. It never went well.

[sunysteelfly76]

There's a much bigger distinction between talking to a passenger while driving than chatting away on a cell phone.

 

If you are chatting to a passenger, you both can view the road, and either of you can pause the conversation while a potential driving threat is averted. But if you are on the phone, you have very limited control over the person you are talking with, and if its a business call, I would bet most would not say "Can you please hold on a moment while I move over and let this tractor-trailer on my arse pass me before I continue to try to sell you a widget"...chances are, you are going to try to handle the call as professionally as you would from a land-line, and that is where the danger comes in...

 

Cell phones are a danger to every driver on the road, and now that I think about it, Blue-tooth may, in some cases, make it worse...with their hands free, maybe they are more likely to try to take notes from the conversation they are in, further distracting them from the road. Since I am not ghey and don't use Blue-tooth, I pull over and return the call when my cell phone rings from a client, knowing I may need to access my laptop, or at least might need to take some notes from the call. How many Blue-tooth users try to do it while driving, since their hands are free? If its more than zero, its a problem.

 

Answer this: why do you think many cities/municipalities/etc. have banned any type of cell phone usage in cars by drivers, but not banned passengers? It ain't that hard to figure out.

 

IMO it is a natural reaction to look at the person you are talking to. Have you ever looked over at the person next to you or looked in the rear view mirror to see the passenger you were talking to in the back seat? On a cell you don't have that added distraction. I think talking to a person live would be more distracting because of the natural instinct to look at the person.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I think talking to a person live would be more distracting because of the natural instinct to look at the person.

 

Unless you are looking at the person you are speaking with for a long period of time (which would be rather stupid, we can all agree), 99.99999 percent of the people probably just give a quick glance....very similar to the quick glance you might give your outside mirrors or rear-view mirror when driving.

 

I would also venture a guess that the ability for the other passeneger you are talking with to also act as your 2nd eyes-and-ears far outwieghs the negative impact glancing at them during a conversation might have. Just a guess.

 

Read the article Az posted....

[Pope Flick]

There's a much bigger distinction between talking to a passenger while driving than chatting away on a cell phone.

 

 

Sure - but if someone wears their headset while in the car and takes a call while driving 'hands free' on the phone, then that's the same as talking to someone in your seat, and occasionally tuning the radio.

 

Your 'headset or not' line is where I disagree. I live in Californiaand personally cannot WAIT for the law to be enforced, so I agree with you in most part.

[keggerz]

Unless you are looking at the person you are speaking with for a long period of time (which would be rather stupid, we can all agree), 99.99999 percent of the people probably just give a quick glance....very similar to the quick glance you might give your outside mirrors or rear-view mirror when driving.

 

I would also venture a guess that the ability for the other passeneger you are talking with to also act as your 2nd eyes-and-ears far outwieghs the negative impact glancing at them during a conversation might have. Just a guess.

 

Read the article Az posted....

i am actually willing to say that yes I think Cell Phones take away from a persons concentration level while driving and that isnt good...but what I want you to do is to admit that there are things in our daily lives that we ALL do while driving which also can decrease our concentration level and be just as dangerous but the difference is that no one is going to make a law making it illegal for you to change your radio station or talk to a passenger or deal with screaming kids in your car.

[untateve]

I wear one in each ear. But then again, I am much more important than most people.

[detlef]

Bingo...thanks for the link, Az...hopefully, some of the folks here that beleive they can do it all will realize they can't, before its to late for themsleves or, god forbid, someone else.

 

Funny how the only contrarian view in the unbiased article comes from an "industry spokesperson"...imagine that.

FWIW, I don't intend to claim that I am as good a driver on the phone as not. Rather that I am a better driver on the phone than 99% of the people out there with or without.

 

My argument is this, we are all constantly balancing safety with convenience. This is just another example. Both your tone and that used in the article implies that you are either someone who's had an accident because of using a cellphone while driving or someone destined to have one. I understand that this doesn't fit into your catch-all mentality, but there are some people who are simply better at doing things than others.

 

I'll make you a deal, as soon as all the jackasses on the road who have no idea how to drive phone or not are eliminated, I'll give up my phone.

[FWmaker]

I use my bluetooth on the road. I actually find that I'm worse when I'm flippin' CDs in and out & messing w/ the radio than while on the phone. Also, I've got to admit that if I try to dial the cell while driving, it is a definite distraction. So unless I'm calling someone w/ one-touch functionality, I either wait until a red light or get to where I'm going or actually pull off the highway to make the call.

[wildcat2334]

i'm not sure what makes you think so. here's an interesting article...

 

 

cool study- thanks.

 

All I know is I drive alot safer, and pay attention much better with a headset on- and it isn't even close.

[Perchoutofwater]

Bingo...thanks for the link, Az...hopefully, some of the folks here that beleive they can do it all will realize they can't, before its to late for themsleves or, god forbid, someone else.

 

Funny how the only contrarian view in the unbiased article comes from an "industry spokesperson"...imagine that.

 

I almost had a wreck when I tried to catch the ear piece as it fell of my ear. Since then I hold my phone to my ear while I talk, so that I don't endanger myself or others. Those things just don't fit well with glasses.

[Savage Beatings]

I have a specially molded blue tooth that comfortably cups my balls. That way its hidden away from people so as not to annoy them... but the drawbacks are that now I am constantly looking down and screaming really loud at my junk, and surprisingly I'm still using my hands to fiddle around with it a lot.

[Azazello1313]

again, i don't really think ANYTHING needs to be outlawed. hell, if they're gonna make all driving distractions illegal, one of the first things they'd have to do is make it a crime to check out chicks.

 

i just think the notion that a bluetooth is so much safer than a handset is absurd. ditto the idea that a bluetooth is "the same as having a conversation with someone in the passenger seat". these are lies. if anything, the clowns who stick that stupid thing in their ear are MORE dangerous, because they seem to be on the phone CONSTANTLY, blabbing away like their life depends on it. it's almost like they feel an obligation to be on the phone. 9 out of the 10 biggest, most oblivious ass holes on the road have a dam bluetooth in their ear.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Azazello1313

[i_am_the_swammi]

again, i don't really think ANYTHING needs to be outlawed. hell, if they're gonna make all driving distractions illegal, one of the first things they'd have to do is make it a crime to check out chicks.

 

I'm not so sure....as the article you posted states, drivers are FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY to be involved in an accident if talking on the phone, versus driver's that are not.

 

Think about that...5 times more likely.

 

Now again, there are plenty of other distractions....radio, eating, smoking, etc. But none (at least not found as part of a study) have been found to be as high a cause for accidents as talking on the phone.

 

When states enacted druken driving laws, I would guess that most used the .08 limit as the Mendoza-line of where impairment truly becomes a factor. Is a driver less lilkely to be in an accident if his alcohol level is .07? Not sure, but for some reason, .08 is the standard, probably because that blood level was found to be such that a driver's impairment can exponentially increase his chances of being in an accident.

 

Similarly, laws need to be put into place that prohibit certain other activities if they are proven significantly more likely to cause harm to the general public. Fireworks, alcohol & guns quickly come to mind as items that, even though many can utilize them with no problems, must be regulated. I am sure with some thought, other examples can be thought of.

 

I think its pretty clear that, based on the findings of an unbiased source quoted in the article, that cell phone usage while driving falls into this category of something whose greater good is outwieghed by the damage that can be caused by those that are unable to properly utilize them.

[Azazello1313]

I'm not so sure....as the article you posted states, drivers are FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY to be involved in an accident if talking on the phone, versus driver's that are not.

 

Think about that...5 times more likely.

 

Now again, there are plenty of other distractions....radio, eating, smoking, etc. But none (at least not found as part of a study) have been found to be as high a cause for accidents as talking on the phone.

 

When states enacted druken driving laws, I would guess that most used the .08 limit as the Mendoza-line of where impairment truly becomes a factor. Is a driver less lilkely to be in an accident if his alcohol level is .07? Not sure, but for some reason, .08 is the standard, probably because that blood level was found to be such that a driver's impairment can exponentially increase his chances of being in an accident.

 

the difference, IMO, is that it CAN be done responsibly. conversations can be kept short, shallow and matter-of-fact to minimize their distraction. it's not that hard. on the other hand, driving while plowed cannot be done responsibly.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Azazello1313

[Big Country]

who hurt you?

[Big John]

When states enacted druken driving laws, I would guess that most used the .08 limit as the Mendoza-line of where impairment truly becomes a factor. Is a driver less lilkely to be in an accident if his alcohol level is .07? Not sure, but for some reason, .08 is the standard, probably because that blood level was found to be such that a driver's impairment can exponentially increase his chances of being in an accident.

Many used .10 as the standard, but MADD got congress to strongarm all states to lower it to .08

[Savage Beatings]

As I have said many times before the correct answer is to make it more difficult to obtain a driver's license. we need to disply a lot more skill in order to be eligible to operate an automobile IMO. But basically in most states all you have to do is show up with a pulse. With car accidents being one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. its amazing to me that legislators don't ever try to change this.

[Big Country]

As I have said many times before the correct answer is to make it more difficult to obtain a driver's license. we need to disply a lot more skill in order to be eligible to operate an automobile IMO. But basically in most states all you have to do is show up with a pulse. With car accidents being one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. its amazing to me that legislators don't ever try to change this.

 

That's because people see driving as a right, not a privilege, and legislators don't want to upset their constitutents by infringing on their "rights"

[i_am_the_swammi]

the difference, IMO, is that it CAN be done responsibly. conversations can be kept short, shallow and matter-of-fact to minimize their distraction. it's not that hard.

 

You seem to be contradicting the article you posted.

 

". ...it's that moment when you need your full attention, and it's not there because you are busy talking, that you increase the likelihood that you are going to be involved in a crash," he said."

 

I don't really care whether you are on the phone for 10 seconds or ten minutes...pull over if you need to make or recieve a call...plain and simple. How can anyone rightly justify their own convenience, or their time, is more important than public safety?

 

Other interesting tidbits:

 

1. The reason that there aren't more accidents linked to cell phone use is probably due to the reactions of other -- more alert -- drivers, Drews said. "Currently, our system seems to be able to handle 8 percent of cell-phone drivers, because other drivers are paying attention," he said. "They are compensating for the errors these drivers are causing," he speculated.

 

2. "...drivers talking on the phone are paying attention to the conversation -- not their driving. "Drivers are not perceiving the driving environment," he said. "We found 50 percent of the visual information wasn't processed at all -- this could be a red light. This increases the risk of getting into an accident dramatically," he said.

 

3. "...researchers found talking on the cell phone reduce reaction time by 9 percent in terms of braking and 19 percent in terms of picking up speed after braking. "This is significant, because it has an impact on traffic as a system," Drews said. "If we have drivers who are taking a lot of time in accelerating once having slowed down, the overall flow of traffic is dramatically reduced," he said.

 

I don't mean to preach....I have never had anything done to me by a cell-phone user, other than make me especially cautious when I see someone going 40MPH in a 55MPH zone on the interstate while chatting away. I just think that certain activities need to be regulated if the greater percentage of people can't function properly while doing them. And from the outcome of this study, it seems that most can't.

[AtomicCEO]

Because, like you, the gubment is reactionary and inclined to focus on the lowest common denominator. Rather than simply ticketing people who drive like idiots, they try to remove any variable that may contribute to an idiot driving like one at the expense of others who can manage just fine. Why not make it so cars can't speed? I mean, there's a lot of accidents caused by speeding.

 

Troof.

 

Plus, cell phones are new and people do studies on it. Who does a study on chatty passengers? They've been around since my great-aunt Doris was 15.

[max]

Typically I don't talk on the phone in the car but if I need to talk while driving I use bluetooth driving. Don't really use it anywhere else though.

[yo mama]

Don't own one; probably never will. Can't get over the concern that they will cause a baseball-sized tumor to develop in my skull 10 years from now, while looking retardedly ghey in the present. If it's *that* important, I'll pull over and make a call or hand the phone off to a passenger. Then again, my commute to work is all of 5 minutes. Its certainly possible that if I had to drive more I'd be more willing to sacrifice my heterosexuality.

[Pope Flick]

Troof.

 

Plus, cell phones are new and people do studies on it. Who does a study on chatty passengers? They've been around since my great-aunt Doris was 15.

 

 

Or kids in the car? Putting on make-up? Drinking a beverage? Eating a burger? There's all types of things that can be distracting in a car and answering a call hands free is on the lower end of one, all studies that don't account for all distractions aside.