Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Study: Cell phones take up driver attention

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
June 23, 2005 11:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Multitasking is a bitch.


From CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/06/21/drivers.cell.p...
or
http://tinyurl.com/b796j

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 1:16:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

I don't need an FN study to tell me that. Last year this girl (21) ran into
the back of my classic mustang at 55MPH (no brakes at all) while I was
stopped making a left turn with my signals on. Clear day, straight, open
road, no other distractions.

IDIOT!

My car did not survive. My passenger and I did with BI.

She is an IDIOT!

If you are one - that is, someone who drives while chatting about nonsense
or anything else on the phone - DON'T!

MG

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11bml9516otcgf2@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Multitasking is a bitch.
>
>
> From CNN...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/06/21/drivers.cell.p...
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/b796j
>
> --
> jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
June 24, 2005 1:57:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Per Edoardo:
>I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent),
>radios, stereos, and the opening of windows or sunroofs (external noise).
>Perhaps everyone should also wear noise-cancellating earphones.

With passengers, the other person is partially participating in the task of
driving - i.e. the driver can just stop talking and they'll understand.

OTOH on the phone, the other end has no expectation of lapses in conversation -
unlike a CB coversation or a conversation with a passenger.

I've never seen a CB user wandering back and forth across the line, doing 68 in
a 75 mph lane, and/or speeding up and slowing down for no apparent reason.
They may be doing it.... but it's not noticible on any kind of regular basis.

Every so often, I see driver/passenger conversations doing one or all of the
above - especially when the driver is making active hand gestures and/or tuning
around to talk to somebody in the rear seat.

However I see cellphone users doing these things on a daily basis. Not just
once a day, either...

The wandering back and forth across the line seems tb the most common. Varying
speed for no apparent reason is comes second.

It's really, *really*, REALLY obvious....

OTOH, I'd be the first to say that some people can pull it off.... but way too
many can't...

Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive.


--
PeteCresswell
Related resources
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 2:41:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:57:06 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid>
wrote:

>Per Edoardo:
>>I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent),
>>radios, stereos, and the opening of windows or sunroofs (external noise).
>>Perhaps everyone should also wear noise-cancellating earphones.
>
>With passengers, the other person is partially participating in the task of
>driving - i.e. the driver can just stop talking and they'll understand.
>
>OTOH on the phone, the other end has no expectation of lapses in conversation -
>unlike a CB coversation or a conversation with a passenger.
>
>I've never seen a CB user wandering back and forth across the line, doing 68 in
>a 75 mph lane, and/or speeding up and slowing down for no apparent reason.
>They may be doing it.... but it's not noticible on any kind of regular basis.
>
>Every so often, I see driver/passenger conversations doing one or all of the
>above - especially when the driver is making active hand gestures and/or tuning
>around to talk to somebody in the rear seat.
>
>However I see cellphone users doing these things on a daily basis. Not just
>once a day, either...
>
>The wandering back and forth across the line seems tb the most common. Varying
>speed for no apparent reason is comes second.
>
>It's really, *really*, REALLY obvious....
>
>OTOH, I'd be the first to say that some people can pull it off.... but way too
>many can't...
>
>Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive.


To all of the whiners of America.

Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have
cellphone activity as the cause.

Now I want all of you that hate people that drive using handsfree devices
to write your represntatives and tell them you want prohibition brought
back.

The two most popular health hazards that are legal in this country, smoking
and drinking, cause more than 100% of vehicle accidents/fatalites then all
cellphones combined in the world.

Don't you just love the driver that's looking to flick his ash of his
cigarette into the ashtray that he/she can't find while driving? After
he/she drops the cigarette into his or her lap do you really think they are
not going to hit you?

Get your priorities straight and stop whining about things that are not
factual. If you don't want car accidents, ban cars.

Smarten up!
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 2:41:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:41:56 -0400, topsy <replyingroup@invalid.com>
wrote:

>To all of the whiners of America.
>
>Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have
>cellphone activity as the cause.

Yeah - virtually all of them are "speed related."
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:53:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in message
news:564nb1temp4rvt1ml672l4q37j8moep9g3@4ax.com...
> Per Edoardo:
>>I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent),
>>radios, stereos, and the opening of windows or sunroofs (external noise).
>>Perhaps everyone should also wear noise-cancellating earphones.
>
> With passengers, the other person is partially participating in the task
> of
> driving - i.e. the driver can just stop talking and they'll understand.
>
> OTOH on the phone, the other end has no expectation of lapses in
> conversation -
> unlike a CB coversation or a conversation with a passenger.
>
> I've never seen a CB user wandering back and forth across the line, doing
> 68 in
> a 75 mph lane, and/or speeding up and slowing down for no apparent
> reason.
> They may be doing it.... but it's not noticible on any kind of regular
> basis.
>
> Every so often, I see driver/passenger conversations doing one or all of
> the
> above - especially when the driver is making active hand gestures and/or
> tuning
> around to talk to somebody in the rear seat.
>
> However I see cellphone users doing these things on a daily basis. Not
> just
> once a day, either...
>
> The wandering back and forth across the line seems tb the most common.
> Varying
> speed for no apparent reason is comes second.
>
> It's really, *really*, REALLY obvious....
>
> OTOH, I'd be the first to say that some people can pull it off.... but way
> too
> many can't...
>
> Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive.
>
>
> --
> PeteCresswell



Right on, Pete. I spend over two hours on the road each day and it's
easy to notice the tell tale cell phone users habits of wandering and not
paying attention. There is definitely a different dynamic to a phone
conversation, than one you are having with a back seat passenger. While
hands free devices and voice dialing help to reduce part of the problem, the
conversation itself is the real danger. It's the psychological distraction,
not the physical that is the main cause of lack of attention to the road.
And as you say, some seem to handle it with no problem, but most don't, and
for some others, well, they almost seem to be in a trance.

As for the stats not showing this as a major accident cause, they will
eventually, as the practice grows. Unfortunately, what doesn't show in the
stats is one driver having to react quickly to a cell phone users lane
drifting and hitting another car, while the phone user goes merrily on his
way oblivious to the tragedy.


Bob
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:58:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than having
a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. What will they
government try to do next.?.... Ban talking to passengers in the car?
June 24, 2005 1:40:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Per topsy:
>Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have
>cellphone activity as the cause.

I'd suspect the statistical collection methodology (or, more to the point, lack
of same) on that one. Do officers routinely ask accident participants if they
were talking on the cell phone when it happened? Is there a "Cellphone In Use"
checkgox on accident report forms? Would anybody in their right mind answer
"Yes" to such a question? Is the data collected and tabulated?

I'd guess "No Way Jose'" on all counts.


Besides, my impression is that most people aren't complaining about the
accidents.

Instead they're complaining about the near accidents and the heightened anxiety
stress on people around the cellphone driver caused by behaviors such as like
weaving from lane-to-lane and varying speed for no apparent reason.


>Now I want all of you that hate people that drive using handsfree devices
>to write your represntatives and tell them you want prohibition brought
>back.

IMHO legal prohibition is futile. wasteful of resources, and generally a lousy
idea.

The only thing that would work is some sort of technical prohibition - like
dropping calls where either phone is perceived by the system to be moving more
than a certain speed and/or moves more than a certain distance.

Obviously that's never going to happen.

I'd favor two things:

1) Developing a national consensus on what proper driving behavior is.

Germany has this, and the difference is astonishing. I'm not saying I'd prefer
to drive in Germany - just that everybody's on the same page and it makes things
possible there that are (thankfully) impossible here - like triple tractor
trailers moving at 45 mph sharing the road with Porches tooling along at 155 mph
- and other things like being able to pull back into the right lane after
passing with never a thought that some nitwit might be trying to pass you there.

Right now reasonable people in the USA can't even agree on the right way to come
down a on-ramp and merge with traffic and I'd guess that at least 2/3 of them
don't even know their car has a turn signal.


2) Enforce some more traffic laws besides running red lights and speeding.
There's just *got* tb a law against weaving back-and-forth across the line in
most states and for years New Jersey cops used to write tickets for cruising in
the hammer lane.

--
PeteCresswell
June 24, 2005 1:40:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Per Scott en Aztlán:
>Yeah - virtually all of them are "speed related."

It's not speed that kills.

It's difference in speed.

Witness the car going 35 and the oak tree going 0.
--
PeteCresswell
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 5:36:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:53:28 -0400, "rjdriver" <rjdrivers@cox.net>
graced us with:

I guess everyone missed this week's "Mythbusters" on Discovery Channel
which tested the myth that driving with a cell phone active was as
disruptive as driving under the influence (for testing purposes they
drove just under the legal blood alcohol limit in CA where it was
filmed).

They proved the the 'myth' was actually fact.

subdude
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 5:51:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

subdude wrote (6/24/2005 9:36 AM):

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:53:28 -0400, "rjdriver" <rjdrivers@cox.net>
> graced us with:
>
> I guess everyone missed this week's "Mythbusters" on Discovery Channel
> which tested the myth that driving with a cell phone active was as
> disruptive as driving under the influence (for testing purposes they
> drove just under the legal blood alcohol limit in CA where it was
> filmed).
>
> They proved the the 'myth' was actually fact.
>
> subdude


I saw a PBS program awhile back on the subject. Don't
remember the title. It was narrated by Alan Alda and
featured studies on the subject of cellphones and driving,
seemingly based on studies undertaken or at least funded by
Ford Motor Corp. Those research studies pretty conclusively
demonstrated the validity of the theory that cellphone usage
has significant impacts on driver reaction time.

All other thing being equal, in general, the age of the
driver is a significant factor.

The most serious delay in response time is when placing an
outgoing call. An "older," i.e., maybe in the over-40 crowd
(I don't recall the exact age breakdown), is distracted for
a longer period of time, maybe 20 or so seconds, and their
reaction time is slowed by something on the order of 15% (I
may have these numbers askew, but the basic thrust of the
study remains valid in spite of my numbers). This older
driver brings the phone up to eye height, dials slowly, and
continues to give the road a significant amount of attention.

The younger driver, the under-25 crowd, is distracted for a
shorter period of time, maybe 10 or 15 seconds, and their
reaction time is slowed on the order of 40-60%. This
younger driver looks away from the road, dials quickly, and
in so doing diverts nearly their full attention away from
the road.

--
RJW
June 24, 2005 6:48:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:40:07 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid>
wrote:

>Per topsy:
>>Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have
>>cellphone activity as the cause.
>
>I'd suspect the statistical collection methodology (or, more to the point, lack
>of same) on that one. Do officers routinely ask accident participants if they
>were talking on the cell phone when it happened? Is there a "Cellphone In Use"
>checkgox on accident report forms? Would anybody in their right mind answer
>"Yes" to such a question? Is the data collected and tabulated?

In California on the accident report forms that officers fill out
(from the CHP) there is a check box for cellphone use. How many
people tell the truth or how many officers actually ask the questions
is something that can't really be readily discovered.



>
>I'd guess "No Way Jose'" on all counts.
>
>
>Besides, my impression is that most people aren't complaining about the
>accidents.
>
>Instead they're complaining about the near accidents and the heightened anxiety
>stress on people around the cellphone driver caused by behaviors such as like
>weaving from lane-to-lane and varying speed for no apparent reason.
>
>
>>Now I want all of you that hate people that drive using handsfree devices
>>to write your represntatives and tell them you want prohibition brought
>>back.
>
>IMHO legal prohibition is futile. wasteful of resources, and generally a lousy
>idea.
>
>The only thing that would work is some sort of technical prohibition - like
>dropping calls where either phone is perceived by the system to be moving more
>than a certain speed and/or moves more than a certain distance.
>
>Obviously that's never going to happen.
>
>I'd favor two things:
>
>1) Developing a national consensus on what proper driving behavior is.
>
>Germany has this, and the difference is astonishing. I'm not saying I'd prefer
>to drive in Germany - just that everybody's on the same page and it makes things
>possible there that are (thankfully) impossible here - like triple tractor
>trailers moving at 45 mph sharing the road with Porches tooling along at 155 mph
>- and other things like being able to pull back into the right lane after
>passing with never a thought that some nitwit might be trying to pass you there.
>
>Right now reasonable people in the USA can't even agree on the right way to come
>down a on-ramp and merge with traffic and I'd guess that at least 2/3 of them
>don't even know their car has a turn signal.
>
>
>2) Enforce some more traffic laws besides running red lights and speeding.
>There's just *got* tb a law against weaving back-and-forth across the line in
>most states and for years New Jersey cops used to write tickets for cruising in
>the hammer lane.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:11:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <3eUue.3$fM6.1@trndny04>, rwyble@yahoo.com says...
> driver brings the phone up to eye height, dials slowly, and
> continues to give the road a significant amount of attention.
>
Sounds like a good reason to require carriers to include free voice
dialing and free directory service with call completion.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
June 24, 2005 7:32:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:bcVue.3215$8o.1311@fed1read03...
> Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than
> having a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. What will they
> government try to do next.?.... Ban talking to passengers in the car?
>

No, just ban vehicles altogether since they can used used for criminal
activity


>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:11:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:bcVue.3215$8o.1311@fed1read03...
> Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than

holy crhsit, we've been over this about a billion times before. Drivers
give MORE attention to cell phone conversations than they do to other
conversations. It's a psychological thing . . . it's harder to be rude to a
person on the phone. -Dave
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 12:15:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <42bc84f4$0$75191$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
noway@nohow.not says...
> It's a psychological thing . . . it's harder to be rude to a
> person on the phone. -Dave

Spoken like someone who has never been a Sprint PCS Rep.

;) 


--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
June 25, 2005 1:10:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Per Mij Adyaw:
>Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than having
>a conversation with a passenger that is in the car.

But it *is* different.

The person at the other end is not tuned into your driving situation and there
is an expectation that you will keep up your end of the conversation no matter
what. There's also the matter of dialing the thing.

I'm not amont those that thinks any kind of ban will work - but there's not
question in my mind that a cellphone conversation is very different from a
conversation with somebody in the vehicle - or even a CB radio conversation.


--
PeteCresswell
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 7:40:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <bcVue.3215$8o.1311@fed1read03>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospam.net> wrote:
> Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than having
> a conversation with a passenger that is in the car.

There's one obvious difference. If you are driving, and doing something
like a tricky merge or something that requires extra concentration, a
passenger might notice what you are doing, and stop talking. Someone on
the phone would probably keep on babbling.

Whether this difference is significant or not is another question, but
it is a difference.

--
--Tim Smith
June 25, 2005 4:48:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than having
> a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. What will they
> government try to do next.?.... Ban talking to passengers in the car?
>
>
For me, a cell phone is distracting but I would have never of noticed
until my passenger pointed it out. Just the other day while talking on
the phone I pulled up to an intersection, the car in front of me
stopped, looked, and then procedded to turn right. I pulled forward,
stopped, looked both ways, and turned left. Problem though, there was a
red light and not a stop sign at that intersection and I went through
it. I would have not even thought about it until my wife yelled "what
the hell are you doing" when I was about half way through the
intersection. This intersection is about 1/4 mile from my house and I
use it every single day so this was nothing new. I believe the fact
that I was on the phone, I was not paying attention to my driving AT
ALL. On that note though, it really depends on the individual on how
you divide your limited brain processing when talking and driving. I'll
admit it though. It does affect my driving.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 4:48:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

You would have been affected to the same level if you were talking to a
passenger that is in your car. (assuming that you were using a hands-free
device)

"nolife" <nolife@fake.inv> wrote in message
news:trOdnb4K64BJFyDfRVn-sw@giganews.com...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than
>> having a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. What will they
>> government try to do next.?.... Ban talking to passengers in the car?
>>
>>
> For me, a cell phone is distracting but I would have never of noticed
> until my passenger pointed it out. Just the other day while talking on
> the phone I pulled up to an intersection, the car in front of me stopped,
> looked, and then procedded to turn right. I pulled forward, stopped,
> looked both ways, and turned left. Problem though, there was a red light
> and not a stop sign at that intersection and I went through it. I would
> have not even thought about it until my wife yelled "what the hell are you
> doing" when I was about half way through the intersection. This
> intersection is about 1/4 mile from my house and I use it every single day
> so this was nothing new. I believe the fact that I was on the phone, I
> was not paying attention to my driving AT ALL. On that note though, it
> really depends on the individual on how you divide your limited brain
> processing when talking and driving. I'll admit it though. It does
> affect my driving.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 4:48:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
> You would have been affected to the same level if you were talking to a
> passenger that is in your car. (assuming that you were using a hands-free
> device)

Pure speculation.

Notan
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:05:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in message news:564nb1temp4rvt1ml672l4q37j8moep9g3@4ax.com...
> Per Edoardo:
> >I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent),
> >radios, stereos, and the opening of windows or sunroofs (external noise).
> >Perhaps everyone should also wear noise-cancellating earphones.
>
> With passengers, the other person is partially participating in the task of
> driving - i.e. the driver can just stop talking and they'll understand.
>
> OTOH on the phone, the other end has no expectation of lapses in conversation -
> unlike a CB coversation or a conversation with a passenger.
>
> I've never seen a CB user wandering back and forth across the line, doing 68 in
> a 75 mph lane, and/or speeding up and slowing down for no apparent reason.
> They may be doing it.... but it's not noticible on any kind of regular basis.
>
> Every so often, I see driver/passenger conversations doing one or all of the
> above - especially when the driver is making active hand gestures and/or
> tuning around to talk to somebody in the rear seat.
>
> However I see cellphone users doing these things on a daily basis.
> Not just once a day, either...
>
> The wandering back and forth across the line seems tb the most common.
> Varying speed for no apparent reason is comes second.
>
> It's really, *really*, REALLY obvious....
>
> OTOH, I'd be the first to say that some people can pull it off....
> but way too many can't...
>
> Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive.
>
There are people on the roads who don't have the sense God
gave a dog, but the answer isn't laws that treat us all like morons.
Teach people how to drive. It takes discipline to multitask while
driving, but it is possible if you remember that the task of driving
comes first at all times. You don't make phone calls (or answer
an incoming call) when traffic conditions are dicey; you don't take
your eyes off the road to dial or while talking; etc. All of this also
applies to tuning the radio, adjusting the heat or A/C or the seat
position, checking to see if you need to buy gas, etc.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 7:11:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in message
news:05mpb1hp90c9abj8gavie5hr26hk6f2nv4@4ax.com...

> The person at the other end is not tuned into your driving situation and
> there
> is an expectation that you will keep up your end of the conversation no
> matter
> what.

If I'm talking to somebody on the phone while I'm driving, the driving takes
priorty. I don't give a flip if they have to hold the line for two seconds
while I take attention to some change in the road or traffic situation. If
they expect more out of me they can talk to me later when I'm not on the
phone.

-Jeff
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 8:40:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

We register cars so they cannot be used in the commission of a crime.

Same with guns. Notice that there are no more gun crimes.

Registration works.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 8:52:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <4kjrb1l0r0rac5v6hni9t08ojekkbbos8p@4ax.com>,
hotmoran@pdf.edu says...
> Notice that there are no more gun crimes.
>
>

Uhh... you really believe this?

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 12:08:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

What is the difference? In fact, with a passenger in the car, some people
are more likely to attempt to look at him/her while carrying on a
conversation.

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:42BD934C.CEFD3679@ddress.com...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>>
>> You would have been affected to the same level if you were talking to a
>> passenger that is in your car. (assuming that you were using a hands-free
>> device)
>
> Pure speculation.
>
> Notan
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 1:17:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
> What is the difference? In fact, with a passenger in the car, some people
> are more likely to attempt to look at him/her while carrying on a
> conversation.

I said "pure speculation," after you told nolife how he'd respond.

As far as talking with a passenger, or on the phone, I find myself
less distracted talking with a passenger. If something happens, such
as an accident or any other distraction, the passenger is usually
aware at the same time that I am, and responds appropriately.

Notan
June 26, 2005 10:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <42bb5d3c$0$53137$892e7fe2
@authen.white.readfreenews.net>, noway@nohow.not says...
> Imaging tests show the brain directs its resources to either visual input or
> auditory input, but cannot fully activate both at the same time, the team at
> Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore found "
>
>
yeah. I can't type this and listen to music at the same time. I
can't look at a TV screen and understand what the lady on the
screen is saying at the same time. Movies totally screw me up, I
end up leaving with a feeling that I just did nothing for 2
hours. Driving while listening to the radio or having a
conversation with a passenger right next to me is impossible,
the human brain will just not allow it. I can't even talk to
myself while riding my bike. The team at John Hopkins University
in Baltimore is on some strange drugs. Do they think we are
really so stupid as to give any credit at all to what they came
up with?
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 9:56:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> You would have been affected to the same level if you were talking to a
> passenger that is in your car. (assuming that you were using a hands-free
> device)


The voice sound coming from your cellphone is not as clear and natural
as that coming from a passenger in the same car. Hence your brain has
to work harder at deciphering what it hears from the phone.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 9:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

If you have SprintPCS, the calls are so clear that you can hear a pin drop
and if you listen really hard you can even hear a fly fart! Apparently you
must be using one of those GSM phones that has unnatural sound and sounds
like the person is underwater. :-)

-mij


"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:o 5Xve.176$RC6.121@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> You would have been affected to the same level if you were talking to a
>> passenger that is in your car. (assuming that you were using a hands-free
>> device)
>
>
> The voice sound coming from your cellphone is not as clear and natural
> as that coming from a passenger in the same car. Hence your brain has to
> work harder at deciphering what it hears from the phone.
>
> --
> John Richards
>
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:22:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

>> It's a psychological thing . . . it's harder to be rude to a
>>person on the phone. -Dave
>
> Spoken like someone who has never been a Sprint PCS Rep.

Oh great...now I have to soak up the coffee I spit all over my keyboard
laughing.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:24:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

>>Notice that there are no more gun crimes.

> Uhh... you really believe this?

He must be from Australia where they outlawed all guns.
!