Could UA be related to cellphones?
in [Toyota]
|
From: SMS on 12 Mar 2010 12:33 ---MIKE--- wrote: > My owner's manual mentions that cellphone use can affect radio > reception. Is it possible that cellphone transmissions could impact the > car's computer and cause problems such as unintended acceleration? No, cell phone use is partially responsible, but not because such use impacts the computer, it impacts the driver.
From: SMS on 12 Mar 2010 12:35 Michael wrote: > The GSM phones are electrically noisy. For the longest time I was > trying to figure out the DUT-dut-dut-dut...dut-dut-dut noise coming > from our car stereo... turns out that was my wife's AT&T GSM phone > talking to the cell tower... even though she wasn't on the phone. My > Verizon CDMA phone doesn't do that. CDMA causes much less interference because it emits less RF. this is good for radio reception and good for your brain. I won't allow anyone to use a GSM phone in my vehicles. Going forward, LTE should not have the problems of GSM.
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 16:00 Conscience wrote: > On 2010-03-12 04:10:15 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>> 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. > > The actual point is that radio use is at, nearly at, or slightly above > the distraction causing effect that cell phone use is claimed to be. > What the exact level truly is depends on what report you believe. That was true about 8 years ago. Cell phone use has increased since then. Another thing that has helped is better placement of radio controls, decreasing reach. > My issue was that you will never see legislation that regulates radio > use, for obvious reasons. Blaming cell phones for accidents is merely > covering up the wretched state of issuing driver's licenses. I have to disagree with that. The study you cited was about the physical demands of using a cell phone, not the mental demands. People don't multitask well. The fact is that when people are talking on cell phones, they are not paying enough attention to the task that can kill themselves and others (drivers). > It's too > easy to get and keep one, and the road is filled with incompetent > drivers who cannot even successfully maneuver a sub-compact into a > parking spot. Cell phones are a scapegoat. People who are able to maneuver a large car into a parking spot are still distracted while talking on the cell phone. The driver's license has nothing to do with it. Jeff
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 16:02 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:tvydnYJdpfzmNgfWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Conscience wrote: >> On 2010-03-12 04:10:15 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>> 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. >> >> The actual point is that radio use is at, nearly at, or slightly above >> the distraction causing effect that cell phone use is claimed to be. >> What the exact level truly is depends on what report you believe. > > That was true about 8 years ago. Cell phone use has increased since then. > Another thing that has helped is better placement of radio controls, > decreasing reach. > >> My issue was that you will never see legislation that regulates radio >> use, for obvious reasons. Blaming cell phones for accidents is merely >> covering up the wretched state of issuing driver's licenses. > > I have to disagree with that. The study you cited was about the physical > demands of using a cell phone, not the mental demands. People don't > multitask well. The fact is that when people are talking on cell phones, > they are not paying enough attention to the task that can kill themselves > and others (drivers). > >> It's too easy to get and keep one, and the road is filled with >> incompetent drivers who cannot even successfully maneuver a sub-compact >> into a parking spot. Cell phones are a scapegoat. > > People who are able to maneuver a large car into a parking spot are still > distracted while talking on the cell phone. > > The driver's license has nothing to do with it. > > Jeff The license was mentioned because in this country, we license drivers who are legally blind or clinically dead, and too stupid to operate a spoon much less an automobile. Then we let them have cell phones, which compounds the problem.
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 16:10
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:tvydnYJdpfzmNgfWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Conscience wrote: >>> On 2010-03-12 04:10:15 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>> 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. >>> The actual point is that radio use is at, nearly at, or slightly above >>> the distraction causing effect that cell phone use is claimed to be. >>> What the exact level truly is depends on what report you believe. >> That was true about 8 years ago. Cell phone use has increased since then. >> Another thing that has helped is better placement of radio controls, >> decreasing reach. >> >>> My issue was that you will never see legislation that regulates radio >>> use, for obvious reasons. Blaming cell phones for accidents is merely >>> covering up the wretched state of issuing driver's licenses. >> I have to disagree with that. The study you cited was about the physical >> demands of using a cell phone, not the mental demands. People don't >> multitask well. The fact is that when people are talking on cell phones, >> they are not paying enough attention to the task that can kill themselves >> and others (drivers). >> >>> It's too easy to get and keep one, and the road is filled with >>> incompetent drivers who cannot even successfully maneuver a sub-compact >>> into a parking spot. Cell phones are a scapegoat. >> People who are able to maneuver a large car into a parking spot are still >> distracted while talking on the cell phone. >> >> The driver's license has nothing to do with it. >> >> Jeff > > > The license was mentioned because in this country, we license drivers who > are legally blind or clinically dead, and too stupid to operate a spoon much > less an automobile. Then we let them have cell phones, which compounds the > problem. While I understand his point, that's not why cell phone use is dangerous. Even competent drivers are impaired when using a cell phone, whether or not the phone is hands free. |