Could UA be related to cellphones?
in [Toyota]
|
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 16:39 Conscience wrote: > On 2010-03-12 13:12:38 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: > >>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this >>> obvious fact, and you've shown all your cards. >> >> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of people to >> make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. Once people get >> over a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should biannual, then annual >> drivers behind the wheel drivers tests. The ability to safely drive >> decreases rapidly, usually beginning around 75. > > What I've observed, albeit subjectively, indicates driver impairment far > earlier than 75. > > Social Security generally starts at 65. Why wait 'til 75? In fact, why > wait until 65? Just require a repeat behind-the-wheel test at 55. Just > as every state experiences a decrease in deaths from murder after > allowing concealed-carry permits, I'd wager we would see a similar > decrease in motor vehicle deaths if we required testing after reaching a > reasonable age. Why not annually, with training to follow-up on the results of the tests, to help drivers learn to drive better. They can simulate situations so that drivers learn how avoid crashes and deal with problems. Simulations helped a US Airways pilot use the Hudson runway in New Jersey without only a few injuries. I am sure they would help drivers of all ages deal with traffic situations. They can also help young drivers learn why paying way too much attention to the radio and cell phone is so dangerous (as dangerous as it is for more experienced drivers, playing with the radio and cell phone is far more dangerous for less experienced drivers). Teens are not known for good impulse control, either. Jeff
From: dr_jeff on 12 Mar 2010 16:40 JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Conscience" <nobama@g�v.com> wrote in message > news:hnebdt$418$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> On 2010-03-12 13:12:38 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >> >>>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this obvious >>>> fact, and you've shown all your cards. >>> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of people to >>> make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. Once people get over >>> a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should biannual, then annual drivers >>> behind the wheel drivers tests. The ability to safely drive decreases >>> rapidly, usually beginning around 75. >> What I've observed, albeit subjectively, indicates driver impairment far >> earlier than 75. >> >> Social Security generally starts at 65. Why wait 'til 75? In fact, why >> wait until 65? Just require a repeat behind-the-wheel test at 55. Just >> as every state experiences a decrease in deaths from murder after allowing >> concealed-carry permits, I'd wager we would see a similar decrease in >> motor vehicle deaths if we required testing after reaching a reasonable >> age. >> > > > Even earlier testing won't help if the testing continues to be too easy. > Driving tests should be designed to force failure. Those who fail will tell > others about the test, and that might dissuade the timid from even trying. Or, simulations and training can be used to improve the driving skills of all people who drive. Even me.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 16:42 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:OPOdnQO7mb8tLgfWnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:R5qdnbkpGY7aMwfWnZ2dnUVZ_rcAAAAA(a)giganews.com... >>> Conscience wrote: >>>> On 2010-03-12 13:00:42 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >>>>>> 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. >>>> A subject opinion. I've seen car radios that have far more options, >>>> controls, and built-in distractions than were present eight years ago. >>>> >>>>>> 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). >>>> Show me one. Just ONE piece of legislation that aims at curbing the >>>> use of your car radio. >>>> >>>> Remember, Jeff. Just one. >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this obvious >>>> fact, and you've shown all your cards. >>> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of people to >>> make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. Once people get >>> over a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should biannual, then annual >>> drivers behind the wheel drivers tests. The ability to safely drive >>> decreases rapidly, usually beginning around 75. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> >> That would help at one end of the age spectrum, but it won't help with >> another: Young women. > > A more serious problem is young men. They are about twice as likely to > crash as young women. True, but if someone tailgates, it's get another sign of permanent driver incompetence. Today, tailgating. Tomorrow, they kill someone. Since they'll tailgate in plain view of cashiers in cop cars, we should be able to fund every imaginable local project simply by enforcing the law.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 16:43 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:4u-dnWo6GusXKQfWnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Conscience wrote: >> On 2010-03-12 13:12:38 -0800, dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> said: >> >>>> The licensing criteria need serious review. Disagree with this obvious >>>> fact, and you've shown all your cards. >>> >>> I totally agree. There should be periodic physical checks of people to >>> make sure they are able to operate a vehicle safely. Once people get >>> over a certain age, maybe 70 or so, there should biannual, then annual >>> drivers behind the wheel drivers tests. The ability to safely drive >>> decreases rapidly, usually beginning around 75. >> >> What I've observed, albeit subjectively, indicates driver impairment far >> earlier than 75. >> >> Social Security generally starts at 65. Why wait 'til 75? In fact, why >> wait until 65? Just require a repeat behind-the-wheel test at 55. Just >> as every state experiences a decrease in deaths from murder after >> allowing concealed-carry permits, I'd wager we would see a similar >> decrease in motor vehicle deaths if we required testing after reaching a >> reasonable age. > > Why not annually, with training to follow-up on the results of the tests, > to help drivers learn to drive better. They can simulate situations so > that drivers learn how avoid crashes and deal with problems. Too expensive. Design the first driving test to force failure. Eliminate 90% of drivers from the road, permanently. Some people are simply not good with spatial relationships and they never will be. They should not be driving.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Mar 2010 16:43
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:hnec7e$vmc$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:42:44 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >>> Incorrect. Both are just as much of a distraction. AAMOF, another person >>> might be MORE of a distraction, since I have witnessed people taking >>> their eyes off the road to look at the person they were talking to for a >>> LOT longer than it takes to dial my phone. >>> >>> >> >> All valid research on this subject says your theory is incorrect. > > My OBSERVATION says that it is. > > Don't get out much, do ya? I spend my entire day on the road. There are > people that shouldn't be driving at all, let alone with cell phones. Your observation is faulty. |