> 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:5:199833 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
