Could UA be related to cellphones?
in [Toyota]
|
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 01:54 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:hncdhc$hid$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:09:35 -0500, dr_jeff wrote: > >> If you think that doing something distracting for 10 >> seconds is as distracting doing something distracting for 5 minutes, you >> are sadly mistaken. > > Again, what's so distracting? Why is a phone different from another person > in the car, or the radio? You're not really that clueless, are you?
From: Clive on 12 Mar 2010 05:49 In message <hnc5me$u2a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Jeff Strickland <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> writes >At what voltage? A watt at 3v and a watt at 12v are completely different >watts. >Perhaps the scale should be milliamps instead of milliwatts. Whatever. The >transmit power of a cellphone is a fraction of the power floating around >within an automotive system. That's what I like to believe. A watt is a watt. How do you come to the idea that a watt at 3v is different to one at 12v? I know you want to say that a watt at 3v is 0.333 amps and that a watt at 12v is 0.0833 amps. But the amperage is not relevant, a watt is a unit of work, not a pressure as in volts or a flow as in amps. Further we're talking high frequencies here which as transmitted (I would imagine but don't know) would be in class "C". -- Clive
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 06:23 Conscience wrote: > On 2010-03-11 19:07:37 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: > >> Conscience wrote: >>> On 2010-03-11 18:58:00 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>> >>>> Conscience wrote: >>>>> On 2010-03-11 18:39:58 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>> >>>>>> Conscience wrote: >>>>>>> On 2010-03-11 17:09:35 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fooling around with your radio/CD player has been shown to be >>>>>>>>>>> more distracting than cell phone use. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But you'll never hear anyone talk about banning their use. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One fools around with the CD or radio for a few seconds, not >>>>>>>>>> for minutes on end as with a cell phone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which in no way negates what I wrote. Time is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do try to keep up, "doctor". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nor did what you say negate my comment. It is a valid comment. >>>>>>>> One spends far more time talking on the cell phone than playing >>>>>>>> with the radio. And time is relevant. If you think that doing >>>>>>>> something distracting for 10 seconds is as distracting doing >>>>>>>> something distracting for 5 minutes, you are sadly mistaken. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't need to be so hostile or disrespectful. I wasn't >>>>>>>> disrespectful of you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's try this again. I stated that radio/CD use was more >>>>>>> distracting that cell phone use. Not my research, but it's true. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, no: >>>>>> http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/safety_info/distracted_drowsy/distracted_drivers_researcher_remarks.cfm >>>>>> shows that people are more likely to swerve when answering a cell >>>>>> phone than using the radio controls. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't restrict it to "swerving", but thanks for playing. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you should read the whole report. It does not support your >>>> claim that using radios is dangerous than using cell phones. It, >>>> too, is not restricted to swerving. >>> >>> Same as global warming. But in this case, I read a report five or >>> six years ago that claimed it does cause more distraction than >>> cellphones. >>> >>> Now the shoe's on the other foot. ;-) >> >> You read a study 5 or 6 years ago? What study? How has cell phone use >> and radio/stereo use and controls changed since then? >> >> Shoe's still on your foot. > > http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/DistractionsInEverydayDrivingHiRes.pdf > > Page 8. > > Have a nice evening. THe problem is that this research was done in 2001. A higher proportion of people have cell phones now. Further, the average time that a manipulation of the radio controls took was 5.5 sec, much shorter than a cell phone call. And, in the study, the only reported distraction that nearly resulted in a crash was a result of cell phone use. In addition, twice as high a proportion of people where observed using cell phones (3% vs 1.3% in the study you cited) in a different study (http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/Passenger%20Vehicle%20Driver%20Cell%20Phone%20Use%20Results.pdf). Jeff
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 07:05 Clive wrote: > In message <hnc5me$u2a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Jeff Strickland > <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> writes >> At what voltage? A watt at 3v and a watt at 12v are completely different >> watts. >> Perhaps the scale should be milliamps instead of milliwatts. Whatever. >> The >> transmit power of a cellphone is a fraction of the power floating around >> within an automotive system. That's what I like to believe. > A watt is a watt. How do you come to the idea that a watt at 3v is > different to one at 12v? I know you want to say that a watt at 3v is > 0.333 amps and that a watt at 12v is 0.0833 amps. But the amperage is > not relevant, a watt is a unit of work, not a pressure as in volts or a > flow as in amps. Further we're talking high frequencies here which as > transmitted (I would imagine but don't know) would be in class "C". Actually, a watt is a unit of power, which is how much work can be done in a period of time, usually one second (1 Watt = 1 Joule per second). While the Jeff S. was correct when he said that the power of a cell phone is only a fraction of the power going around a car, the same can be said of the power of the radio signal coming to my car at 104.3 MHz, which is the radio frequency of a local radio station. Yet, this very week signal is able to greatly influence the functioning of the radio when it is set to this frequency. My point is that very small amounts of power can greatly influence the functioning of electronics. And, if the cell phone works at the right frequency, the car's electronics would be greatly affected. However, it has to be at the proper frequency. And, auto makers understand this. So they will take steps to make sure that electronics are not affected, like providing the proper shielding. I don't like the implication of Jeff S's comment - "That's what I like to believe." You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make it true. Jeff
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 07:10
dr_jeff wrote: > Conscience wrote: >> On 2010-03-11 19:07:37 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >> >>> Conscience wrote: >>>> On 2010-03-11 18:58:00 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>> >>>>> Conscience wrote: >>>>>> On 2010-03-11 18:39:58 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Conscience wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2010-03-11 17:09:35 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fooling around with your radio/CD player has been shown to >>>>>>>>>>>> be more distracting than cell phone use. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But you'll never hear anyone talk about banning their use. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One fools around with the CD or radio for a few seconds, not >>>>>>>>>>> for minutes on end as with a cell phone. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which in no way negates what I wrote. Time is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do try to keep up, "doctor". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nor did what you say negate my comment. It is a valid comment. >>>>>>>>> One spends far more time talking on the cell phone than playing >>>>>>>>> with the radio. And time is relevant. If you think that doing >>>>>>>>> something distracting for 10 seconds is as distracting doing >>>>>>>>> something distracting for 5 minutes, you are sadly mistaken. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't need to be so hostile or disrespectful. I wasn't >>>>>>>>> disrespectful of you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's try this again. I stated that radio/CD use was more >>>>>>>> distracting that cell phone use. Not my research, but it's true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, no: >>>>>>> http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/safety_info/distracted_drowsy/distracted_drivers_researcher_remarks.cfm >>>>>>> shows that people are more likely to swerve when answering a cell >>>>>>> phone than using the radio controls. >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't restrict it to "swerving", but thanks for playing. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you should read the whole report. It does not support your >>>>> claim that using radios is dangerous than using cell phones. It, >>>>> too, is not restricted to swerving. >>>> >>>> Same as global warming. But in this case, I read a report five or >>>> six years ago that claimed it does cause more distraction than >>>> cellphones. >>>> >>>> Now the shoe's on the other foot. ;-) >>> >>> You read a study 5 or 6 years ago? What study? How has cell phone use >>> and radio/stereo use and controls changed since then? >>> >>> Shoe's still on your foot. >> >> http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/DistractionsInEverydayDrivingHiRes.pdf >> >> Page 8. >> >> Have a nice evening. > > THe problem is that this research was done in 2001. A higher proportion > of people have cell phones now. Further, the average time that a > manipulation of the radio controls took was 5.5 sec, much shorter than a > cell phone call. And, in the study, the only reported distraction that > nearly resulted in a crash was a result of cell phone use. > > In addition, twice as high a proportion of people where observed using > cell phones (3% vs 1.3% in the study you cited) in a different study > (http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/Passenger%20Vehicle%20Driver%20Cell%20Phone%20Use%20Results.pdf). > > > Jeff The point of this discussion shouldn't be you're right or I'm right (of course, I am right). We should be able to discuss this in a civil manner. For example, I would point out that the physical demands of cell phone use is not a big issue. However, the mental demands are. While talking on a cell phone, the big problem isn't that one's hands aren't on the wheel. It is that one's brain is not on the road, but on the conversation, in other words, mental distraction. It doesn't mean that what you have to say is less important or what I have to say is more important, but that we don't need to get the last word or have a winner or loser. Jeff |