RWD vs. FWD in snow and ice

A Fezzazz? In winter? Any time!!! Especially here - Q: what is "snow"?

Steve Magee

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030129080944.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,59371,00.html

etc.

 

The second article makes no mention at all of normal passenger
conversation compared to handsfree cell conversation, so it's not
relevant to my question. The first article makes this reference:

"The earlier study also found there was no impairment of drivers who
either conversed with a passenger or who listened to the radio or to
books on tape."

And it makes it with no analysis or reasoning whatsoever. Without the
report, neither I, nor you (although feel free to let me know if you've
read the actual report) can assess the validity of their claim, or
statistical relevance of their data. Certainly a logical person would
want to ask the question, did their comparison of regular passenger
conversation meet the same standard as the handsfree cell conversation,
namely, were the participants "conversing with another student who was
instructed to keep a balance between making the driver talk and listen"?

Maybe, but I'll never know with the articles you cited. Or maybe you
can present a logical argument of your own that discriminates in any way
whatsoever between a passenger conversation and a handsfree cell
conversation.

No, please, continue.

 

Yeah, but they're also typing on their laptops and doing a bunch of other
things at once. I've had police cars try to share my lane with me when
they're typing.

 

It's a news article, not a study abstract or text. It is assumed
(correctly) that those who are interested will read the actual study. One
does not obtain scientific knowledge from Wired Magazine.

There are many resources available for reading studies on the matter. The
National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board and the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute maintain
outstandingly complete and well-indexed libraries of research, and both
are easily searchable online.

 

In other words: 1. No, you have not read the report and have no
scientific knowledge with which to make the statement "it's known and
robustly shown that the distraction is from the phone conversation, not
the hold-in-the-hand phoneset." and. 2. No, you cannot formulate your
own logical argument why there would be any difference between an in-car
conversation and a handsfree cell phone conversation.

 

Wrong. I've read the report. I just don't feel obligated to do *your*
homework for you. If you want to read the report, go and do it and be
successful with it. If you don't want to read the report, feel free to
remain ignorant.

But until you *have* read the report, your opinions and guesses and
preferences have very little weight.

DS

 

I think you're full of shit. But I'll look for the report and let you
know just how full of shit you really are. Upon further review, the
article you provided (you know, not the one that was totally irrelevant)
actually beefed up the original press release from the NSC to actually
add "conversed with a passenger" to the original sentence "and that cell
phone conversations create much higher levels of driver distractions
than listening to the radio or audio books" which made no mention of
in-car conversation at all.

LOL, you had time to google up a couple of unrelated news articles, that
you now say "One does not obtain scientific knowledge from", but no time
to answer the very simple question I asked. Simple that is, for someone
who claims to have read a study or report or any other source of
information in existence which presents evidence that a handsfree cell
phone conversation is more dangerous than an equivalent in-car conversation.

So which report that you claim you read was it? The report cited in the
article discussed above, or the "earlier" study cited in that same
article, or the Swedish study in the second article you posted? All
three? Which one made any mention at all of a comparison between in-car
conversation and handsfree cell conversation?

True enough, I'll be sure to report back and trounce you some more after
I track it down.

 

Used to have a 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass that did this with annoying
regularity. Trying to keep the rear drums properly adjusted on that car was
more difficult than just about anything else automotive that I've ever done.
It was also the poster child for poor snow performance.

Jeff

 

Just checking back in with you, didn't want to leave you hanging.

The NSC report is only available for purchase online, so I guess you
either subscribe to Injury Insights and read the Feb/March 2003 issue,
or were interested enough to purchase the study, so I applaud your
diligence in this important matter. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't lie
about reading the study, or your claim that there was an analysis of
cell vs passenger conversation.

There were plenty of other studies and articles available through a
quick search, like the one below, that shows that in car conversation is
the leading cause of driver distraction, contrary to the ridiculous and
possibly fabricated statement in the article you provided "...there was
no impairment of drivers who either conversed with a passenger or who
listened to the radio or to books on tape.". No impairment, that's a
pretty bold statement.

Anyway, in either case, I'll leave it at that: you have provided no
logical reasoning behind your implied claim that there's a difference
between equivalent in car and handsfree cell conversations. I am
sticking with common sense which yields there being no difference
whatsoever.


http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/jan05/295724.asp

"In what were described as preliminary estimates, the study found that
the most common distraction - 29% of the cases - was an outside person,
object or event. Using a cell phone was ranked eighth as a source of
distraction, at 1.5%."

"In a follow-up study, the researchers put cameras for one week in the
vehicles of 70 volunteers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The
researchers announced in August 2003 that the most common distraction
was conversing, as drivers talked with passengers 15% of the time but
talked on a cell only 1% of the time. The follow-up study did not
attempt to find which distractions are most likely to lead to crashes."

 

I suspect having to listen to the reprocessed audio of a cellphone requires
more brain processing time than listning to reasonable-fidelity radio or
books on tape. I also notice I'm more distracted when listen to scratchy
2-way analog radios while mobile as well, but not so much as with
cellulars.
<snip>

 

That may be so, but it's probably a secondary factor. Passengers
physically in the car can shut up when a challenging driving situation
arises, can point and go "LOOK OUT FOR THAT KID!", can say "Hey, you gonna
stop for the red light?", etc. The other end of even a hands-free celphone
conversation can't.

 

Strange, because the way I read it, you already knew all about the
difference, based on some sort of study you read where they apparently
compared handsfree cell conversation to passenger conversation.
Furthermore, you now seem to have time to "do (my) homework" for me and
take a crack at answering the original question I asked, but still no
time to shed any light on what was written in this report you read.
Intriguing.

 

Why don't you take the time to read the report instead of wasting your
time complaining about someone who doesn't want to read it to you.

 

Sure. Care to provide it to me (they take credit cards, but sorry, not
PayPal)? And in any case, the answer is obvious if you care to read
between the lines.

Please don't mistake my enjoyment in exposing a bullshitter for complaining.

 

No. Now, why do you keep asking everyone else to do your work for you?

 

Is Dan your Dad or something?

 

Beggin' your pardon, ma'am, but I wasn't talking to you.

 

Good thing for you.