Some of the research I've cited had other distractors as experimental conditions - just search the archives - and have found that those distractors, passengers, music, news, etc., have not had the impact on performance as cell phone use.
larry On 3/13/06, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey its the current theory. And it fits the empirical > > data. Also one aberrent case doesn't equal proof. > > > Moreover you don't stare at the person the entire > > conversation. > > Right but I don't stare at the hands free phone ever (except when I've > stopped to dial it). I don't actually have one currently, but I have > in the past. It seems to me that the studies are measuring what they > want to measure, but not other things. They say "you pay more > attention to the cell phone" but neglect other distractors, so it just > seems rational to me that if they say "you pay more attention to the > cell phone" but I know about other distractors that the sum total of > them is going to mean roughly equivalent (or possibly non-measurable) > amounts of distraction. > > Non-measurable, as in, I really don't think there's any way to measure > the amount of distraction a person experiences when the overreacting > spouse in the passenger seat screams "YOU'RE GONNA HIT THE CURB!" and > the driver suddenly jerks the wheel in the other direction. I don't > think it's possible to either collect enough of the right data to > measure that on the basis of actual events, or to create a labaratory > environment in which those conditions can be accurately recreated > (which most notably would include the driver believing that they > really are in a potentially dangerous situation and not knowing that > the other person is going to scream at them). > > I suspect also that the statistical analysis of accident reports > involving cell phones are bogus. I had to sign a waiver for insurance > at my last job saying how I understood that using hands-free cell > phones while driving was more dangerous than bungee jumping while > stoned. Their evidence appeared to be accident report statistics, and > I'd be willing to bet that a large number of those are people who got > rear-ended and then noticed that the person who hit them was on a cell > phone. The problem being that the person was on the cell phone because > they picked it up to call someone immediately _after_ the collision > happened. Aha! That BASTARD wasn't watching where he was going, > talking on his cell phone! (And probably becoming more and more > popular to look specifically to check to see if they are using a cell > phone at the time.) > > It's not that I'm saying my own empirical evidence is proof to > contrary. I just think there's enough empirical evidence to consider > the studies with extreme skepticism. I just don't think this is a case > in which the conventional wisdom is reliable, and I think the reasons > for questioning that wisdom are a) obvious and b) ignored. > > Although in retrospect... completely unrelated, but I just had this > wierd thought to write a scene in the book I've been contemplating > writing where somebody uses behavioral reinfocement while sitting in > the passenger seat to manipulate the driver into getting lost or > possibly crashing the car. :) Neat idea... now I need a motivation for > someone doing it. :) > > > s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201 > new epoch : isn't it time for a change? > > add features without fixtures with > the onTap open source framework > > http://www.fusiontap.com > http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199841 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
