🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Duncan wrote:

> In co.general Chris <mine@net.none> wrote:
> > I wasn't. Does this mean that the accidents occur in the conversation phase as
> > opposed to dialing? Interesting premise. I saw one person punching in numbers
> > hop a curb. Then again it wasn't technically an "accident" as no damage
> > occurred. I'm certain, however, that it was accidental.
>
> And since when is punching in numbers restricted to handheld phones?
> Don't handsfree phones have keypads?

Some do - some do not.

>  Don't some handheld phones
> have voice dialing?

Yes - some do - see a solution there?

> According to the NHTSA, dialing the phone
> is EXACTLY the same risk as fiddling with the stereo.

It may be - then again I can't call you on 97.3FM can I?

> > You can't really believe that cell phone use while driving isn't a risk factor.
>
> I didn't say that.  I said that handheld phones are no different
> from handsfree phones.

You're wrong.

If you saw CNN Newsstand tonight you know that only 2 states even bother to query
accident reports as to cell/radio/2way usage, no national statistical data base
exists, and indeed the entire cell phone driving phenomenon is relatively immature
and thus unlikely to yield a reasonable sample period.

What you dismiss now as anecdotal may simply be factual but bereft of a 10 or 20 year
statistical data set.

That does not mean the conclusions reached are wrong or even unprovable - just that
this is a new toy.

Remember "necking knobs" back in the 50's?

You know - those little rotating mini wheels that one could affix to the steering
wheel and operate the car while wrapping another arm and attention around the
passenger.

Ever wonder why you don't see them today?

Think it took a 10 or 20 year sample period to cull that idiotic product from the
mainstream?

>
> -DanD
>
> --
> #  Dan Duncan (kd4igw)  spambait@frottage.com  http://pcisys.net/~dand
> # The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.
> #               BUCKMINSTER FULLER