scanny77 wrote:
what annoys me is the fact that they are now saying it is not the physical holding of the phone that is dangerous but the fact that the driver is concentrating on the conversation rather than concentrating on the road
these are the experts and its taken them how long to figure that out?
Experts?
Experts?
I was going to avoid responding for quite a while, to let this poll 'steer itself' ...
Frankly, today, most of the so-called experts have so much 'foneymunny' in their pockets, it isn't funny. I suppose today, others might call them experts, but if I listen to them long enough, I can tell whether or not they really are experts, or liars-of-ommission, bought for a price.
The buyer decides what 'conclusions' they want, finds an expert ... liar ... at the right price, and then the liar 'figures' by playing at semantics with available statistics and omitting info which doesn't support the bought conclusion.
botach wrote:
Other :- Taxi drivers / mobile hams /CB users /etc/etc/ have no extra training - but they still drive whilst "on air ".
What defines the difference between brain concentating on radio /mobile?
To me mobile use is like speed - there's a time and place .
(Underlines by The Rush)
Earlier, Ms. Smith delineated two types of user: those who see the caller, and those who don't. (Fate forbid both caller-drivers are visually impaired by speaking to each other!)
As a taxi driver, I can also see other important factors:
Aside from the price of the fare, most of what's said over the radio pertains to the job; addresses, places, locations. For example, if a driver is lost, the dispatcher tries to give directions.
If one driver is bored, the dispatcher is generally discouraged from idle chatter with that driver, as it would distract the other drivers.
Also, the dispatcher knows to respect the following requests from drivers:
a) stand by
b) I'll get back to you
c) one moment please
etc.
Finally, it's nearly impossible to speak over each other, as driver and dispatcher take
discrete turns.
Oh, yeah, I don't 'see' my dispatcher either. I'm usually picturing my destination, or routing in my mind, including probable traffic states and how that might alter my routing.
I could argue that such subject matter might, in some instances, improve some drivers' focus (those who would be impaired probably shouldn't be driving, regardless).
[Warning: randy!]
For a stark contrast, imagine one's paramour, calling to inform the other that she isn't wearing anything but a gift ribbon, and is waiting very impatiently. I would think that either the person that could, or the method that would allow one to, focus on driving instead of ... superhappyfuntime ... would merit thorough study. (Now I can't drive for the next five minutes!)
Of course, if both are driving, while speaking on their 'handy's, I'd be shocked if both of their drives home were safe, and without incident. In fact, I'd bet a lot of money that several errors of observation or risk detection/assessment/management would occur between them, and such a call might still be distracting long after it's over.
(In such a case, a manual transmission might keep enough of one's mind on driving to be an important safety benefit! Imagine what else could fall to hand?)
[/randy]
I'm sure a few other topics of conversation could be more distracting, while probably the majority of topics are less distracting, to varying degrees. (Is the subject of a 'handy' conversation included in accident reports?)