Hands-free still ain't enough...

[Jer]

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

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[mark]

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech

I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
THE CONVERSATION.

No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous
if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

 

[Guest]

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

Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech
>
> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
> THE CONVERSATION.
>
> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous
> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

Hasn't this last paragraph been proven false somewhere/somewhen? I don't
have time to google it, but I thought there was a difference in brain
patterns/attention/reaction time when you (the driver) are talking to a
passenger vs. somebody on a phone....

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

brian
--
If you want to reply to this message by mail, you will
have to change the reply address to beuchaw@beuchaw.net

 

[Dan]

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

"Mark" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3hhad1lo494pc173c4roqi1tfgrp56q5a6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech
>
> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
> THE CONVERSATION.
>
> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more
> dangerous
> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

They had a ton of links a month or so ago when chicago passed the cell phone
law saying the exact same thing. When i emailed Burt Natarus (the main guy
in chicago who wanted it) his exact responce via email was
"I am sorry, but you are dead wrong."and went on saying this:"I am
attempting to pass a statue state-wise."Thanks!!

 

[Guest]

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

I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do
not agree with you!

Mark wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech
>
>
> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
> THE CONVERSATION.
>
> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous
> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

 

[Guest]

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

Yup. I think the solution is to install a monitoring device in the car that
issues you a traffic citation if you attempt to talk to a passenger that is
in the car.


"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cskBe.3137$dU3.582@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do not
> agree with you!
>
> Mark wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech
>>
>>
>> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
>> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone.
>> IT'S
>> THE CONVERSATION.
>>
>> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
>> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more
>> dangerous
>> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

 

[mark]

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

You are certainly good at contradicting yourself in a single sentence.


On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:52:56 GMT, Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do
>not agree with you!
>
>Mark wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech
>>
>>
>> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
>> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
>> THE CONVERSATION.
>>
>> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
>> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous
>> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.