blib wrote:
    >
    > > Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > > phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?
    > >
    > Illegal in the UK unless a handsfree is used, well not actually illegal but
    > comes under 'Driving without due care and attention'

Which certainly describes it! I've watched drivers here at home
unconsciously drift from one traffic lane to another while holding a
cell-phone in one hand. Less dangerous but equally annoying are those
who chat on, oblivious to the fact the traffic lights have changed to
"go". (Especially during "rush" hours, with a long line of cars behind
them.)

tim wrote:
    >
    > "Casey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > > phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?
    >
    > any country that has any sense.

Especially if the calls are of the same "world-shaking" importance as
those I overhear in supermarkets and restaurants, here! ("Hi." "Oh,
I'm at [name of shop or restaurant]" "Oh, really?" "What did she say
then?" "I think we may go up to Santa Barbara for the weekend" "Oh,
that's a GREAT movie"..... and on and on and on.)

louis xiv wrote:
    >
    > Hmm. An extensive study. Speaking as someone who recently had a near death
    > experience due to a total arsehole who was talking on his phone i'm afraid
    > that what some bunch of academics in Carolina have to say on the subject of
    > dangerous driving means less than f*%k all.

One wonders HOW extensive? Also, where? (SFAIK,the cities of North
Carolina are not among the most hazardous for drivers in the U.S. - they
may even have a higher than normal percentage of drivers who use their
cell-phones responsibly.)

tim wrote:
    >

    > 1) compared to what?
    >
    > Oh.....
    >
    > "When drivers were reading or writing, their eyes were focused inside
    > 92% of the time."
    >
    > Sorry comparing one wrong thing to another wrong thing doesn't make
    > the first one right, WTF is the driver doing reading or writing in the first
    > place?

Where do combing their hair and putting on makeup (using the rear-view
mirror for the purpose) rank as hazards?

    >
    > 2) IMHO it isn't just whether someone eye's are focused inside
    > the car or not. It's also relevent whether their brain is engaged
    > on the job in hand or something else. Someone eating in the car
    > is only going to de distracted for the period when they reach out
    > and pick up the item and not whilst they are actually eating it.
    > Someone making a phone call is going to be distracted for the
    > total length of that call (whatever they may say to the contrary).

One reason for requiring car-seats for small children is because an
unrestrained child can demand too much of the driver's attention,
putting both the child and the driver at risk. (Yes, I know the
"primary" reason is to protect the child from sudden stops and starts,
but think about it.)

Derek F wrote:
    >

    > Should I report the driver of the next bus I am on who does it?

Is it a personal call? (In that case, I'd say "yes, you probably
should, but most likely won't".) If the phone use is part of the
driver's "official business", won't the bus company provide the hands
free sort?

Derek F wrote:
    >
    > "blib" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > Why do you wish to put someone's life at risk [1] for the sake of
    > > > > a small amount of convenience? What did you do before you had
    > > > > the phone? Stop at every coin-box?
    > > > > [1] 2 people killed by senseless drivers on the phone in the UK
    > > > > now IIRC.
    > > > > Tim
    > > > Can't but agree. I'm more or less horrified when I see driver with one
    > > hand
    > > > on the steering wheel and the other with the phone.
    > > > Hands free doesn't help as it's a matter of attention.
    > > > Was out biking two days ago and one such idiot intensively talking was
    > to
    > > > close to smash me. I've noticed the car number however and now I'm
    > > going
    > > > to send some nasty comments by mail or phone....
    > >
    > > Usually a second rate sales rep driving a Mondeo with his suit hanging up
    > in
    > > the back, and a notepad on the steering wheel, and an electric shaver in
    > the
    > > other hand, crossword on the seat next to him, Curry on the
    > > Dashboard.......................etc...etc..
    > >
    > And a grateful hitch hiker he has just picked up giving him a bit of
    > satisfaction at the same time.

LOL! (It would be interesting to hear how he'd explain THAT to the
officer investigating the ensuing collision!)


    > Derek,

"Harvey Van Sickle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:55:17 GMT, Derek F wrote
    > >
    > > "Harvey Van Sickle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:13:44 GMT, blib wrote
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>>> Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > >>>> phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific
    > >>>> localities?
    > >>>>
    > >>> Illegal in the UK unless a handsfree is used, well not actually
    > >>> illegal but comes under 'Driving without due care and attention'
    > >>
    > >> You're right that that's what it falls under at the moment, but I
    > >> think it's due to become a specific UK offence in December.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Cheers, Harvey
    > > Should I report the driver of the next bus I am on who does it?
    > > Derek.
    > Definitely. Absolutely definitely. And don't wait for December.
    > --
    > Cheers, Harvey
Often I think it is the company phoning the driver even althought they have
two way radio contact. If I gave evidence in court the next bus would get
me:-)
Derek.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Derek F wrote:
    > >
    > > "blib" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > > Why do you wish to put someone's life at risk [1] for the sake of
    > > > > > a small amount of convenience? What did you do before you had
    > > > > > the phone? Stop at every coin-box?
    > > > > > [1] 2 people killed by senseless drivers on the phone in the UK
    > > > > > now IIRC.
    > > > > > Tim
    > > > > Can't but agree. I'm more or less horrified when I see driver with
one
    > > > hand
    > > > > on the steering wheel and the other with the phone.
    > > > > Hands free doesn't help as it's a matter of attention.
    > > > > Was out biking two days ago and one such idiot intensively talking
was
    > > to
    > > > > close to smash me. I've noticed the car number however and now
I'm
    > > > going
    > > > > to send some nasty comments by mail or phone....
    > > >
    > > > Usually a second rate sales rep driving a Mondeo with his suit hanging
up
    > > in
    > > > the back, and a notepad on the steering wheel, and an electric shaver
in
    > > the
    > > > other hand, crossword on the seat next to him, Curry on the
    > > > Dashboard.......................etc...etc..
    > > >
    > > And a grateful hitch hiker he has just picked up giving him a bit of
    > > satisfaction at the same time.
    > LOL! (It would be interesting to hear how he'd explain THAT to the
    > officer investigating the ensuing collision!)
    > > Derek,
A British soap actress was famously doing that to her boyfreind when police
stopped the car. There was a court case.
Derek.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:44:20 GMT, Derek F wrote
    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]...
    >> Derek F wrote:
    >>> "blib" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...

-snip re: idiots using a mobile/cell phone whilst driving-


    >>>> Usually a second rate sales rep driving a Mondeo with his suit
    >>>> hanging up in the back, and a notepad on the steering wheel,
    >>>> and an electric shaver in the other hand, crossword on the seat
    >>>> next to him, Curry on the
    >>>> Dashboard.......................etc...etc..

    >>> And a grateful hitch hiker he has just picked up giving him a
    >>> bit of satisfaction at the same time.

    >> LOL! (It would be interesting to hear how he'd explain THAT to
    >> the officer investigating the ensuing collision!)

    > A British soap actress was famously doing that to her boyfreind
    > when police stopped the car. There was a court case.

IIRC, to address the "And how do you explain that, Madam?", she claimed
he suffered from pancreitis (sp?) and she was undoing his belt to
relieve the pressure.

The court did not, as I recall, believe her.

--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:22:41 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >One wonders HOW extensive? Also, where? (SFAIK,the cities of North
    >Carolina are not among the most hazardous for drivers in the U.S. - they
    >may even have a higher than normal percentage of drivers who use their
    >cell-phones responsibly.)

You COULD have followed the link and learned that half the drivers (in
Part II) of the study were in Chapel Hill, NC and half in
Philadelphia, PA. Part I used federal accident data from over 32,000
vehicles damaged in collisions.

The data does not show that cell phones are not distracting, but that
a number of other activities are more distracting. Such as: eating
and drinking, radios, cd players, climate controls, and conversation
among driver and passengers.

Of course it's no match for anecdotes and preconceived notions.

Gordon

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:41:42 GMT, Gordon Forbess wrote

-snip-

    >
    > The data does not show that cell phones are not distracting, but
    > that a number of other activities are more distracting. Such as:
    > eating and drinking, radios, cd players, climate controls, and
    > conversation among driver and passengers.

I find it interesting that the data show less distraction from a phone
than from conversations with passengers. I'm quite certain I've seen
reliable info -- from what seemed to be sound studies -- which
suggested that even using a hands-free mobile is more distracting than
having an in-car conversation.

This was widely reported when the new UK laws were being debated --
there was pressure to ban hands-free as well as hand-held phones, and
people (like me) had to be convinced that talking on the phone and
talking to a passenger resulted in different levels of distraction.

Oddly enough, whilst my gut reaction was "they've got to be largely the
same", it turned out to be intuitively sound: reaction-time testing
(AIUI) found that when the "other party" is in the car, they're more
aware of what's happening than when they're at the other end of a phone
line, and thus know when to clam up when something untoward happens.

(I think the study turned out to be by one of those Institutes for
Proving the Bleeding Obvious....)

--
Cheers, Harvey

"Gordon Forbess" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:22:41 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >One wonders HOW extensive? Also, where? (SFAIK,the cities of North
    > >Carolina are not among the most hazardous for drivers in the U.S. - they
    > >may even have a higher than normal percentage of drivers who use their
    > >cell-phones responsibly.)
    > You COULD have followed the link and learned that half the drivers (in
    > Part II) of the study were in Chapel Hill, NC and half in
    > Philadelphia, PA. Part I used federal accident data from over 32,000
    > vehicles damaged in collisions.
    > The data does not show that cell phones are not distracting, but that
    > a number of other activities are more distracting.

Whilst I have yet to find time to read the whole of the 104 page document,
it appears to state no such thing. It appears to state the amount of time the
average driver spends (often by choice) doing a particular thing which is
though to be distracting. I haven't yet found anything in the report
which correlates these claimed distractions with the cause of accidents,
except for one:

"Even in the more recent Pennsylvania data, cell phone use was identified
in just 5.2 percent of the distracted driving crashes."

But as the report itself suggests that mobile phone use is only 1.5% of
distractions, it seems to be point towards the claim that mobile phone use is
more distracting that othe 'distractions' which is exactly why it should be
banned.

tim

    > Such as: eating
    > and drinking, radios, cd players, climate controls, and conversation
    > among driver and passengers.
    > Of course it's no match for anecdotes and preconceived notions.
    > Gordon

"Harvey Van Sickle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:44:20 GMT, Derek F wrote
    > > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > > message news:[email protected]...
    > >> Derek F wrote:
    > >>> "blib" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>> news:[email protected]...
    > -snip re: idiots using a mobile/cell phone whilst driving-
    > >>>> Usually a second rate sales rep driving a Mondeo with his suit
    > >>>> hanging up in the back, and a notepad on the steering wheel,
    > >>>> and an electric shaver in the other hand, crossword on the seat
    > >>>> next to him, Curry on the
    > >>>> Dashboard.......................etc...etc..
    > >>> And a grateful hitch hiker he has just picked up giving him a
    > >>> bit of satisfaction at the same time.
    > >> LOL! (It would be interesting to hear how he'd explain THAT to
    > >> the officer investigating the ensuing collision!)
    > > A British soap actress was famously doing that to her boyfreind
    > > when police stopped the car. There was a court case.
    > IIRC, to address the "And how do you explain that, Madam?", she claimed
    > he suffered from pancreitis (sp?) and she was undoing his belt to
    > relieve the pressure.
    > The court did not, as I recall, believe her.
    > --
    > Cheers, Harvey
Well, she is not a very good actress.
Derek.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:25:57 +0200, "tim"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >But as the report itself suggests that mobile phone use is only 1.5% of
    >distractions, it seems to be point towards the claim that mobile phone use is
    >more distracting that othe 'distractions' which is exactly why it should be
    >banned.

I don't think that's the conclusion most people who read it are
making. Some examples:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ar/6474889.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/aug03/160726.asp

http://www.freep.com/news/driving/helms7_20030807.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdoc...808-000001.asp

Gordon

    > > Some European cities/countries have banned the use of cell
    > > phones while driving. Anyone want to mention specific localities?
    > any country that has any sense.
    > Why do you wish to put someone's life at risk [1] for the sake of
    > a small amount of convenience? What did you do before you had
    > the phone? Stop at every coin-box?

I think you and I are in violent agreement. I think the USA
should ban the use of cell phones while driving. I was just
curious about Europe.


Casey