Interesting People mailing list archives
reducing cell phone-related to deaths to zero.
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:47:01 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Anthony Watson <atrigueiro () yahoo com> Date: August 27, 2006 12:36:09 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: reducing cell phone-related to deaths to zero.It seems that there is this ever-growing desire of the people to have the government protect them from themselves and from everyone else. Trying to reduce every risk to nothing when it means giving up rights should not be something Americans embrace...at least not in the America that Ben Franklin helped created. These draconian laws always seem to come under the banner of "If we can save one life, then we should do it...."
I am surprised that Daylight Savings Time continues to be advocated and expanded. Study after study has shown that there is an increase in traffic accidents and therefore deaths twice a year as the clocked are shifted. I see no real tangible benefit from Daylight Savings Time that would be worth the death of even one soul. Add to it that these traffic accidents sometimes involve children, for example waiting as bus stops in the dark, it hardly seems worth risking the life of one child.
Also, I think a case could be made that the strap-in society that we are now raising our children is is affecting them in ways we have not yet understood. I mean children are strapped into car seats for endless trips around town, they are strapped into strollers and high chairs for so much of their early years. Then later medical science begin warning that our children are sedentary and flabby. They have been raised to be sedentary. There are some consequences to the strap-in toddlerhood and infancy that American children are subjected to early on. I have two children and I tried to curtail my desire to strap my kids down when they were being mischievious and I think they benefited hugely from my insistence that they allowed to be free and mobile, especially outdoors whenever possible.
There are consequences to the sacrifice of freedom for safety, even in a device as universally lauded as the car seat...IMHO
~aw There's also an American study on this subject http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/WickensChapterFinal.pdf#se arch=%22frank%20drews%22 and a news article referencing the authors' work http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060630/NEWS07/60630045 3/1009 For me, the relevant question is "how does talking on a cell phone, either hands-free or hand-held, compare to a conversation with your front seat driving companion?" I talked with one of the authors, who said they've done some preliminary investigation on this question, and still find that cell phone usage - handsfree - is worse for safety than the in-person chat. Their postulated mechanism is that the *passenger* shares the local context with the driver and thus moderates his/her own conversation to adjust for critical times in driving, whereas the cellphone partner lacks the context. I don't know if this work has been published yet. herb -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:29 AM To: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: [IP] more on more on Silliness in Action: California Poised for Cell Phone Ban Begin forwarded message: From: patrick thibodeau <smoke_dc () yahoo com> Date: August 27, 2006 10:26:41 AM EDT To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] Silliness in Action: California Poised for Cell Phone Ban
I'd love to see links to the science supporting this contention that the California's proposed cell phone restriction is silly. Connecticut adopted a similar law Oct. 1. A widely quoted British study summarized by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety seems to offer conditional support to the contention that hands-free will make little difference. http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_news_071205.pdf > Hands-free versus hand-held: The results suggest that banning hand-held phone use won't necessarily enhance safety if drivers simply switch to hands-free phones. Injury crash risk didn't differ from one type of reported phone use to the other. "This isn't intuitive. You'd think using a hands-free phone would be less distracting, so it wouldn't increase crash risk as much as using a hand-held phone. But we found that either phone type increased the risk," McCartt says. "This could be because the so-called hands-free phones that are in common use today aren't really hands-free. We didn't have sufficient data to compare the different types of hands-free phones, such as those that are fully voice activated."< Maybe a restrictive law is needed: either ban cell phone use or stipulate the type of hands-free use that is acceptable. Perhaps the automotive industry, working with cell phone makers, can integrate hands free, voice activated systems into dashboards that not only allow users to answer calls by voice command but can read email as well. How difficult would it be to have users answer a call by flicking a dashboard switch? If the California law is silly, then what should be done to reduce cell phone related death and injury? Patrick Thibodeau Washington DC --- David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> > Date: August 26, 2006 11:15:52 PM EDT > To: dave () farber net > Cc: lauren () vortex com > Subject: Silliness in Action: California Poised for > Cell Phone Ban > > > Dave, > > As you know, I frequently speak out against what I > view as silly > laws that fly in the face of logic, science, or just > plainly > observable facts. > > In yet another proof that reality and politics often > don't mix, > lawmakers here in California are poised (after many > years refusing > to go along with the bill's main sponsor) to approve > a ban on > handheld cell phones when driving. This may happen > as soon as next > week. You can count on Arnold, desperate for > popular actions he can > take so close to election day, to sign the bill. > > All of us have been annoyed by the gabbing cell > phone user who seems > to be driving oblivious to everything around them. > So without a > doubt this law will have wide appeal. And if > experience in other > states holds, the law will have little or no > long-term positive > safety effects, and handheld cell phone use will > quickly rise back to > pre-law levels after a brief initial reduction. > > The reasons are obvious. Study after study shows > that distracted > driving of *any kind* is a key factor in accidents. > While someone > holding a cell phone clamped to their ear is easy to > spot, we're less > aware of the radio manipulators, people screaming at > their children > in the back seat, makeup applicators, food eaters, > and any of a > myriad number of other distracted drivers. In fact, > studies have > shown that the most common distractions leading to > accidents when > driving are other people inside the vehicle or > things seen outside > the vehicle. > > Even worse, research shows quite clearly that > talking on hands-free > cell phones (still permitted under the bill) is > equally distracting > as using a handheld device. It's the remote > conversation itself > that is the real distraction, not the act of holding > the cell phone > -- plus there's all the situations where people > fumble around to > answer or dial a call even on a hands-free cell > phone. > > When proponents of this legislation are presented > with these > inconvenient facts, they tend to reply with, "Oh > well, at least > we're doing something..." > > "Something" isn't good enough when it's based on bad > science. If you > really want to remove cell phones as a distraction, > you need to ban > them totally when driving -- handheld or hands-free, > as has been > done in some other countries. I'm not advocating > this, nor do I > think that politicians here have the guts for such > actions anyway. > In fact, banning children from cars might be far > more effective in > terms of reducing accidents, however unlikely the > prospect. > > To a certain extent this law will be a paper tiger. > Major California > cities don't have enough police to deal with serious > crime, much less > pulling over people for illegal cell phone use. And > the bill's > penalties -- $20 for first offense, $50 for > subsequent, will hardly > be seen as an onerous burden by most drivers in an > era of $3+ gasoline. > > But this law itself is still primarily pandering to > voters in a manner > that flies in the face of science. Perhaps laws > officially > recognizing astrology will be next here in the > Golden State. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein > lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 > http://www.pfir.org/lauren > Co-Founder, PFIR > - People For Internet Responsibility - > http://www.pfir.org <http://www.pfir.org/> > Co-Founder, IOIC > - International Open Internet Coalition - > http://www.ioic.net <http://www.ioic.net/>> Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com <http:// www.vortex.com/>
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com <http://lauren.vortex.com/> > DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com <http://daythink.vortex.com/> > > > > ------------------------------------- > You are subscribed as smoke_dc () yahoo com > To manage your subscription, go to > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip > > Archives at: > http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as hlin () nas edu To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as Anthony.Watson () dollarsandsense com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- reducing cell phone-related to deaths to zero. David Farber (Aug 27)