I have certainly abandoned the conversation when dumbshit putting on their makeup or eating a burger cut me off, in order to focus on the road, but I don't believe the opposite has been true.
And that's the issue. Sure we can't multitask very well, but we're quite capable of suspending tasks in order to focus on more immediate ones, and research shows it can be done almost instantly. So if people's priorities aren't fucked up (driving at 140kph is much more important RIGHT NOW than your wife's problem on the phone), then we don't have an issue.
This particular accident is not the reason why the NTSB is proposing this. The NTSB is proposing this because there is a huge amount of incontrovertible evidence that when people talk on their cell phones while driving (regardless of whether the phone is hands-free), the become distracted and drive badly.
Please cite evidence of poor driving performance when having every-day conversations with familiar people.
Yes, there is evidence (though it's probably not incontrovertible) that indicates doing complex geometric tasks, difficult mental math or complex memorization problems while driving DOES decrease attention.
But simple, casual conversation, in my experience, does not have such effects, at least not to a pronounced degree.
Can you please cite your "incontrovertible evidence"?
Studies almost always have people doing very strenuous activities like mental math and memorizing long lists, but most people have a hard time even walking up stairs or eating while doing those things. They're a unique edge case, but perhaps the research is approached with this edge case in order to try to prove a point (or the researchers are simply lazy, you choose).
I've never seen one study where it is a casual conversation with a friend, which, in my experience, causes almost zero distraction.
The research you cited made these claims using FMRI and also pointed out that the effect was the same regardless of whether it was a cell phone or a person sitting next to you, but actual in-car research doesn't follow through on that and indicates that talking to someone in-person can actually improve driving ability, or at least has little effect.
They then cite 4 studies that involve people physically manipulating digital screens (looking at a screen for extended periods OBVIOUSLY reduces response times).
Then the article goes on a long-winded advocacy rant about how psychologists should send letters to the NTSA encouraging bans on cell phones.
I'm having a hard time with your citation.
Do you have any real-world tests that don't involve 3d spacial manipulation or math/memorization problems leading to decreased driving ability?
I'm just curious because casual conversation on a hands-free headset doesn't seem to translate to poor driving in my experience, where it's very clear (yes even for myself) that texting, or doing mental math has a SERIOUS implication for driving ability.
Personally I'm quite happy to stick my phone on silent and ignore it until I get to my destination, or, if I need to make a call, I pull into a layby somewhere and do it.
Personally, I'm not. I know argument by anecdote is no proof, but I've driven 400,000 miles with no accidents in snowy and have been talking on a cell phone almost every time I drive since the mid 1990s. Of course, it is important to me that I drive well and I have occasionally been poor company on the phone, or had to ask someone to call back in challenging driving conditions like a snowstorm, but in all, I've felt like I've driven pretty safely.
As a driver, I adjust my listening level to the conditions on the road, which apparently many people can't do.
I have seen studies showing the difficulty driving while talking, but they almost always are forcing people to engage in strenuous activities like mental math and counting backwards and memorizing lists. OF COURSE you can't do that and drive.
But conversations like "hey, how's the girlfriend?" are almost instinctive and I find very little distraction from that type of discussion. When something comes up on the road, I find myself completely zoned out of the conversation and have to say "uhm, sorry, what? I didn't catch that, someone was driving like a dick over here."
Only under really extreme circumstances have I ever felt like it was an issue (and by extreme, I mean mountain driving at night in a snowstorm with lots of deer around). And no, I've never wrecked a car, nor had an accident, despite driving about 400,000 miles in my life and having animals, people and vehicles dart in front of me unexpectedly many dozens of times and having lived in a snowy climate for most of that period.
I disagree with the flat ban on cell phones. Maybe I've just gotten lucky, or maybe i'm a shmuck for not engaging appropriately in conversations while driving, but at least I'm not a schmuck who wants to prohibit everything enjoyable to gain a tiny immaterial bit of safety.
Cool, but the point being... people really do appreciate concrete evidence before going out and banning popular activities.
The "well it seems logical" argument is really absurd. It may... seem logical... but often it's not, and sometimes it's exactly the opposite.
This applies to many areas of life, not just cell phones in cars. Most legislation is poorly backed by data and is instead backed by emotion or rhetoric.
Canada's recent "tough on crime" legislation, for example, was exactly contradictory to the studies commissioned by the same government showing that more prison time paradoxically INCREASES general crime rates in affected areas, rather than lowering them, but the politicians were stuck in the "no, this seems logical" fallacy and passed it anyway.
As a former van driver, buy one of those little sticky bubbles and stick it in the corner of your mirror. Learn to use it. Save the life of a mortorcyclist (or a Miata driver)
The great irony here is that the United States is the only country in the world that DOES this.
All US Citizens, regardless of where they live, what other citizenships they hold or what they are doing... are required to pay income tax to the US on all income, worldwide.
If you are a US Citizen and you move away. If you live in France or China for the REST of your life, you owe Uncle Sam a tax return every year. If you ever set foot in the US again, after living abroad for years, you may be arrested for tax evasion.
See, every other country in the world taxes based on residency, so if I'm living in France, I pay french taxes.
If I am French and I am moving to the USA, I stop paying or filing French taxes.
But an American moving elsewhere has to keep his head under Uncle Sam's watchful eye if he ever intends to return again in his life.
You can certainly renounce your citizenship, but it is illegal to do so for tax reasons and if you return to the US at some later date and have not filed taxes, you are committing a crime.
Modern Christmas trees were once a pagan symbol, to be fair, that was co-opted by the Catholic church in the 3rd century to combat the influence of pagan ritualism in feudal Roman societies of northwestern Europe.
About 90% of the holiday from gift-giving to lit trees, to fires, singing carols, santa clause, mistletoe, cranberries, reindeer and just about every other thing you can think of about the holiday (INCLUDING the date), were all pagan symbols of the solstice celebration LONG before they were Christian symbols.
So, the "original intention" is not what you, or most Americans, seem to think it is.
Jesus was most likely born in the Autumn (most likely in September) by any anthropological accounts I've seen.
Pioneer 10 and 11 were both launched with sufficient velocity to escape the solar system. They were launched before Voyager, but did not have as large a velocity, so were passed by the Voyager probes in the 1990s as the furthest from the Earth.
I'm pretty sure this was planned, since the Pioneer probes has this really cool plaque on them (designed by Carl Sagan), in the event they were found by alien species:
It's really really cool that Voyager is still going, but this talk of crossing into the heliosheath, etc seems to be dragged out a bit (yes, it's a vague and slow transition, I understand...)
It also seems that a universe coming out of nothingnesss from nowhere violates the laws of thermodynamics.
So does a dude in a white toga making it appear with a sneeze.
I find that eyeballs wired to a brain to come from evolution alone to be pretty unlikely.
We were made in God's image. Where did his eyeballs come from? SuperGod?
You have to believe in a big "appearance" at some time, no matter what it was that was appearing.
Given which "big bang" is more plausible... one that produces a superbeing that happens to have two arms and two legs and eyes and things... that can create universes and is really really vindictive, a tad unstable and extremely needy..... or a physical process that sets in motion a series of events according to a few dozen simple rules...
I can tell you which I find more plausible.
But I guess that's where the thought process diverges.
I reacted that way because I gathered that GP was taking a swipe at "climate science" in the general tone of the typical ad hominem criticisms of the scientific method that seem to come out of that line of argument and that particular camp of folks.
My comments applied to many branches of science, without necessarily condoning any particular contested opinion.
However, like Russel's teapot, the logical inference is... that without evidence, we should assume something extraordinary doesn't exist.
I proclaim there is a large human settlement on the dark side of the moon that is invisible due to advance cloaking technology provided by an alien race that arrived in 4000 BC to help Egyptians to build pyramids.
This... is equally as plausible (scientifically speaking) as the God of Genesis (or Brahama of the Mahapuranas). Must I run around giving "equal treatment" to the potential existence of this colony, or should I presume, lacking evidence, that is probably doesn't exist.
I ran into Ms Tarter (the director of SETI) at the Oakland airport a few years ago and recognized her from her numerous bits of SETI branded gear she had.
I was very pleased to find that she was both passionate and intelligent, as well as very pragmatic. We had the chance to talk for over and hour before the flight left and discussed many of the things that are interesting about the whole project.
I certainly consider myself lucky to have seen a part of that and heard it first hand.
I have seen no other theories that properly explain both the galactic gravity phenomenon as well as the ever expanding universe paradox. They seem to be at odds with each other and no single explanation has ever adequately explained both, except for those that sound a little wacky (dark matter/dark energy, etc).
His model is less accurate than that which is predicted by dark matter. The fact that it does align with several known observations makes it at least worth consideration, but realistically, there are a dozen or more theories about this, most of which are a little crackpot.
To entertain alternatives because the consensus theory is still in doubt is healthy, but the consensus still represents to most scientists, the most plausible and will continue to drive current research efforts until a new model is proven fairly conclusively, to be more accurate.
This is how science works and it is not broken. I can clearly tell you are not a scientist and you also have issues with other science that may or may not have plausible alternative models, which may or may not match current observations and experimental results with more or less success, but which still haven't caught on because of gaps in their explanations of various observed phenomena.
The scientific method isn't perfect, but it serves us well in general and it is worthwhile to stick with it in order to attempt to explain our surroundings. Are you implying otherwise?
Your employer should not know about that. Any half reputable firm doing interviews will understand if you ask the discussion to remain confidential. It is not unusual for someone who is looking for a job to be treated differently and every hiring manager I've ever met knows that and will be respectful about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree.
I talk on the phone often while driving.
I have certainly abandoned the conversation when dumbshit putting on their makeup or eating a burger cut me off, in order to focus on the road, but I don't believe the opposite has been true.
And that's the issue. Sure we can't multitask very well, but we're quite capable of suspending tasks in order to focus on more immediate ones, and research shows it can be done almost instantly. So if people's priorities aren't fucked up (driving at 140kph is much more important RIGHT NOW than your wife's problem on the phone), then we don't have an issue.
I would be very disappointed if I could not use my phone while riding the train to work.....
Just something to think about.
This particular accident is not the reason why the NTSB is proposing this. The NTSB is proposing this because there is a huge amount of incontrovertible evidence that when people talk on their cell phones while driving (regardless of whether the phone is hands-free), the become distracted and drive badly.
Please cite evidence of poor driving performance when having every-day conversations with familiar people.
Yes, there is evidence (though it's probably not incontrovertible) that indicates doing complex geometric tasks, difficult mental math or complex memorization problems while driving DOES decrease attention.
But simple, casual conversation, in my experience, does not have such effects, at least not to a pronounced degree.
Can you please cite your "incontrovertible evidence"?
Thanks.
Studies almost always have people doing very strenuous activities like mental math and memorizing long lists, but most people have a hard time even walking up stairs or eating while doing those things. They're a unique edge case, but perhaps the research is approached with this edge case in order to try to prove a point (or the researchers are simply lazy, you choose).
I've never seen one study where it is a casual conversation with a friend, which, in my experience, causes almost zero distraction.
The research you cited made these claims using FMRI and also pointed out that the effect was the same regardless of whether it was a cell phone or a person sitting next to you, but actual in-car research doesn't follow through on that and indicates that talking to someone in-person can actually improve driving ability, or at least has little effect.
They then cite 4 studies that involve people physically manipulating digital screens (looking at a screen for extended periods OBVIOUSLY reduces response times).
Then the article goes on a long-winded advocacy rant about how psychologists should send letters to the NTSA encouraging bans on cell phones.
I'm having a hard time with your citation.
Do you have any real-world tests that don't involve 3d spacial manipulation or math/memorization problems leading to decreased driving ability?
I'm just curious because casual conversation on a hands-free headset doesn't seem to translate to poor driving in my experience, where it's very clear (yes even for myself) that texting, or doing mental math has a SERIOUS implication for driving ability.
Personally I'm quite happy to stick my phone on silent and ignore it until I get to my destination, or, if I need to make a call, I pull into a layby somewhere and do it.
Personally, I'm not. I know argument by anecdote is no proof, but I've driven 400,000 miles with no accidents in snowy and have been talking on a cell phone almost every time I drive since the mid 1990s. Of course, it is important to me that I drive well and I have occasionally been poor company on the phone, or had to ask someone to call back in challenging driving conditions like a snowstorm, but in all, I've felt like I've driven pretty safely.
As a driver, I adjust my listening level to the conditions on the road, which apparently many people can't do.
I have seen studies showing the difficulty driving while talking, but they almost always are forcing people to engage in strenuous activities like mental math and counting backwards and memorizing lists. OF COURSE you can't do that and drive.
But conversations like "hey, how's the girlfriend?" are almost instinctive and I find very little distraction from that type of discussion. When something comes up on the road, I find myself completely zoned out of the conversation and have to say "uhm, sorry, what? I didn't catch that, someone was driving like a dick over here."
Only under really extreme circumstances have I ever felt like it was an issue (and by extreme, I mean mountain driving at night in a snowstorm with lots of deer around). And no, I've never wrecked a car, nor had an accident, despite driving about 400,000 miles in my life and having animals, people and vehicles dart in front of me unexpectedly many dozens of times and having lived in a snowy climate for most of that period.
I disagree with the flat ban on cell phones. Maybe I've just gotten lucky, or maybe i'm a shmuck for not engaging appropriately in conversations while driving, but at least I'm not a schmuck who wants to prohibit everything enjoyable to gain a tiny immaterial bit of safety.
Cool, but the point being... people really do appreciate concrete evidence before going out and banning popular activities.
The "well it seems logical" argument is really absurd. It may... seem logical... but often it's not, and sometimes it's exactly the opposite.
This applies to many areas of life, not just cell phones in cars. Most legislation is poorly backed by data and is instead backed by emotion or rhetoric.
Canada's recent "tough on crime" legislation, for example, was exactly contradictory to the studies commissioned by the same government showing that more prison time paradoxically INCREASES general crime rates in affected areas, rather than lowering them, but the politicians were stuck in the "no, this seems logical" fallacy and passed it anyway.
As a former van driver, buy one of those little sticky bubbles and stick it in the corner of your mirror. Learn to use it. Save the life of a mortorcyclist (or a Miata driver)
+1 Brilliant.
Well said.
The great irony here is that the United States is the only country in the world that DOES this.
All US Citizens, regardless of where they live, what other citizenships they hold or what they are doing... are required to pay income tax to the US on all income, worldwide.
If you are a US Citizen and you move away. If you live in France or China for the REST of your life, you owe Uncle Sam a tax return every year. If you ever set foot in the US again, after living abroad for years, you may be arrested for tax evasion.
See, every other country in the world taxes based on residency, so if I'm living in France, I pay french taxes.
If I am French and I am moving to the USA, I stop paying or filing French taxes.
But an American moving elsewhere has to keep his head under Uncle Sam's watchful eye if he ever intends to return again in his life.
You can certainly renounce your citizenship, but it is illegal to do so for tax reasons and if you return to the US at some later date and have not filed taxes, you are committing a crime.
WTF?
Modern Christmas trees were once a pagan symbol, to be fair, that was co-opted by the Catholic church in the 3rd century to combat the influence of pagan ritualism in feudal Roman societies of northwestern Europe.
About 90% of the holiday from gift-giving to lit trees, to fires, singing carols, santa clause, mistletoe, cranberries, reindeer and just about every other thing you can think of about the holiday (INCLUDING the date), were all pagan symbols of the solstice celebration LONG before they were Christian symbols.
So, the "original intention" is not what you, or most Americans, seem to think it is.
Jesus was most likely born in the Autumn (most likely in September) by any anthropological accounts I've seen.
What is the original intention again?
Voyager are not the only ones.
Pioneer 10 and 11 were both launched with sufficient velocity to escape the solar system. They were launched before Voyager, but did not have as large a velocity, so were passed by the Voyager probes in the 1990s as the furthest from the Earth.
I'm pretty sure this was planned, since the Pioneer probes has this really cool plaque on them (designed by Carl Sagan), in the event they were found by alien species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque
It's really really cool that Voyager is still going, but this talk of crossing into the heliosheath, etc seems to be dragged out a bit (yes, it's a vague and slow transition, I understand...)
http://science.slashdot.org/story/05/05/24/2334240/voyager-1-crosses-the-termination-shock
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/02/0243246/voyager-probes-give-us-ets-view
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/12/14/1451216/voyager-1-beyond-solar-wind
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/04/28/2314203/voyager-set-to-enter-interstellar-space
It also seems that a universe coming out of nothingnesss from nowhere violates the laws of thermodynamics.
So does a dude in a white toga making it appear with a sneeze.
I find that eyeballs wired to a brain to come from evolution alone to be pretty unlikely.
We were made in God's image. Where did his eyeballs come from? SuperGod?
You have to believe in a big "appearance" at some time, no matter what it was that was appearing.
Given which "big bang" is more plausible... one that produces a superbeing that happens to have two arms and two legs and eyes and things... that can create universes and is really really vindictive, a tad unstable and extremely needy..... or a physical process that sets in motion a series of events according to a few dozen simple rules...
I can tell you which I find more plausible.
But I guess that's where the thought process diverges.
I reacted that way because I gathered that GP was taking a swipe at "climate science" in the general tone of the typical ad hominem criticisms of the scientific method that seem to come out of that line of argument and that particular camp of folks.
My comments applied to many branches of science, without necessarily condoning any particular contested opinion.
The logical conclusion is "I don't know"
However, like Russel's teapot, the logical inference is... that without evidence, we should assume something extraordinary doesn't exist.
I proclaim there is a large human settlement on the dark side of the moon that is invisible due to advance cloaking technology provided by an alien race that arrived in 4000 BC to help Egyptians to build pyramids.
This... is equally as plausible (scientifically speaking) as the God of Genesis (or Brahama of the Mahapuranas). Must I run around giving "equal treatment" to the potential existence of this colony, or should I presume, lacking evidence, that is probably doesn't exist.
That's probably because he was not entirely competent, not because he was unsure of hostilities. :-)
She's in her 60s, I think. :-)
No further offence intended to 60 year olds, but I certainly don't run with the image of highballs and boobs.
I ran into Ms Tarter (the director of SETI) at the Oakland airport a few years ago and recognized her from her numerous bits of SETI branded gear she had.
I was very pleased to find that she was both passionate and intelligent, as well as very pragmatic. We had the chance to talk for over and hour before the flight left and discussed many of the things that are interesting about the whole project.
I certainly consider myself lucky to have seen a part of that and heard it first hand.
uhm... I think his point was that fighting started BEFORE 1943.
I think you were agreeing with him?
No quite sure....
Athiesm takes as much of a leap of faith as belief in a diety or dieties.
In exactly as much as Russel's Teapot does as well.
I am willing to take the leap of faith that proclaims... THERE IS NO TEAPOT!
I have seen no other theories that properly explain both the galactic gravity phenomenon as well as the ever expanding universe paradox. They seem to be at odds with each other and no single explanation has ever adequately explained both, except for those that sound a little wacky (dark matter/dark energy, etc).
Thoughts?
His model is less accurate than that which is predicted by dark matter. The fact that it does align with several known observations makes it at least worth consideration, but realistically, there are a dozen or more theories about this, most of which are a little crackpot.
To entertain alternatives because the consensus theory is still in doubt is healthy, but the consensus still represents to most scientists, the most plausible and will continue to drive current research efforts until a new model is proven fairly conclusively, to be more accurate.
This is how science works and it is not broken. I can clearly tell you are not a scientist and you also have issues with other science that may or may not have plausible alternative models, which may or may not match current observations and experimental results with more or less success, but which still haven't caught on because of gaps in their explanations of various observed phenomena.
The scientific method isn't perfect, but it serves us well in general and it is worthwhile to stick with it in order to attempt to explain our surroundings. Are you implying otherwise?
Wow, that's funny. I felt like I had honey in my brain for the whole weekend into Monday after a Friday night party.
Bleh...
That sort of sticky, can't wash it off feeling you get from being covered with honey...
Imagine your thoughts being like that. Blargh.
I know not everyone has this reaction, but I found it really not worth it.
Your employer should not know about that. Any half reputable firm doing interviews will understand if you ask the discussion to remain confidential. It is not unusual for someone who is looking for a job to be treated differently and every hiring manager I've ever met knows that and will be respectful about it.
So don't tel them!!