Solution …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY
dunk
Solution …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY
dunk
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
Yes, evidence for that. Because the available evidence shows you are wrong.
You should re-read the Highway Code about footwear, and this.
https://www.themotoringlaw.uk/driving-in-heels/
I don't drive in heels and didn't bring that up but thanks I will bear that in mind.
I couldnt give a rats arse about the evidence....you can make stats and evidence match anything you wish driven by any given agenda. If you just thought about what appears to be hitching your pants up for one second. Operation a mobile phone in your hands, using the keyboard, texting, social media is more distracting than talking on an auto answering handsfree call. The fact you can't get that is quite staggering. In fact id say it's bewildering why you don't get that.
So instead of believing the evidence which has been gathered by people who actually know what they are talking about, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la I'm not listening".
I don't know which is more staggering - that you are so totally pig ignorant, or that you're actually willing to admit it in public! Whichever, I just hope that I'm never driving on the same section of road as you.
OK, so now you are trying to twist the argument into "texting and using social media" vs hands-free calls. That is a straw-man argument, as the data pertains to phone calls only, i.e. hands-free vs hand-held.
You are really very good at fallacious arguments. Driving, not so much.
I don't know, because I've not seen any comparative studies comparing these two activities. Have you (and if so, can please provide a reference)? I don't dispute that they are both dangerous, and that no responsible or safe driver would engage in either activity.
What's absolutely irrefutable is that a handsfree phone conversation is just as distracting and dangerous as a handsheld phone conversation, and both are as dangerous as driving at the drink/driving level - which is the issue under discussion.
Was there just as much rubbish bandied about when seat belts became compulsory?
Try for the briefest of moments to consider how you might feel if a loved one died due to someone being distracted by a phone / text.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Umm no- I’m looking on the rospa website that’s been quoted here. The definition of a hand-held mobile phoneThe Regulation includes any “device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data”.
It states that a “mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other “interactive communication function”. "Interactive communication function" includes:
(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages; (ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and (iv) providing access to the internet
There are two exemptions:
2- way “press to talk” radios, such as used by the emergency services and taxi drivers
Using a hand-held phone for a genuine emergency call to 999 or 112 if it would be unsafe for the driver to stop.
So yeh what’s your point?
I would encourage anybody who regularly has calls while driving to reflect, immediately after their call, how much of the previous few minutes driving they can actually recall. I'd suggest it will be either minimal or zero.
In the Sotadic Zone, apparently.
If you want to carry on a discussion, then perhaps you might quote something which is actually relevant to that discussion - a definition of the "regulation" certainly ain't that. You appear to either be too stupid or too obtuse to understand that.
Once again: a handsfree phone conversation is just as distracting and dangerous as a handsheld phone conversation, and both are as dangerous as driving at the drink/driving level. I'll leave it there.
Don't worry about it FFF - I think they are taking absolute nonsense!
Of course handheld is more distracting - you have to engage, look at the screen, lose the use of one hand etc. Compared to actually continuing to do what you're doing. It's just a ridiculous argument.
I wouldn't trust a number of people posting to be able to "walk and chew gum" at the same time though - so maybe the lowest common denominator law making we see all the time will prevail to save us all from ourselves.
You only need to look at how they treat these things. Hmmm. Let me see, I'll put people in the same car, one that most of the subjects aren't familiar with, and then I'll call them and see if it affects them. I'd like proper parameters, proper testing etc. What was the call about? How much thought we they required to give the conversation / were they required to carry out mental tasks, or just talk with a friend. Most us could take a call and would tell a friend or a company they couldn't work something out just yet as we are driving - but could still hold a simple conversation. I'd also suggest that people that deal with calls all the time while driving are generally pretty damn good at doing both.
It's just a matter of time...
Lol so funny. & You are also not reading the full research, and purposefully missing the point!
The actual conversation, may well prove to be as distracting - hmmm let me think about that, you don't say - of course it is they are both conversations!
However, one also requires you to remove elements of your attention over and above the other. How you can argue that there isn't an additional distraction in that is totally beyond me.
The other point which the research misses is use and familiarity - a new driver is distracted by many things, whereas an experience driver is not.
It's just a matter of time...
I'm not arguing it - the actual evidence (unlike your mistaken belief) shows it. The additional distraction involved by using hands-held is tiny and does not have a statistically meaningful difference to the distraction level (and, by extension, to the danger inherent in making a telephone call while trying to drive).
Your second sentence is laughable and proves that you haven't actually read any of the primary research (which, naturally, corrected for length of driving experience).
No. You are missing the point again.
I wasn't taking about driving experience. I was taking about driving while using a bloody phone experience - two very different things, and not one that I noted was specifically covered.
Ok my dad's bigger than your dad GTFO!
"Summary:New research suggests that drivers who use hands-free electronic devices, as opposed to handheld ones, are less likely to get into a crash."
It's just a matter of time...
Anyone that doesn't understand that you can improve, and will improve - doesn't remember learning a new skill.
It's just a matter of time...
Oh wake up.
You are trying to argue a point that was not covered by the research you are referring to.
I'll let you look up the research about training yourself to be less distracted - because there is far too much of it out there. You really can't be serious on that one. It's called concentrating if that helps.
It's just a matter of time...
TBF, you can train yourself to switch off when someone's talking - just ask any wife about husbands
Last edited by Omegamanic; 18th August 2019 at 15:45.
It's just a matter of time...
The relevant research shows that hands-free phone calls are as distracting as hand-held calls.
You are talking about "activities requiring a driver to take his or her eyes off of the forward roadway, such as texting or dialing on a handheld phone". It's not relevant, and is a Straw Man argument.
No. If you read "my" posts - you'll realise that's the only point I've been making, I've also stated that the actual distraction from just the conversations from both would be the same (which seems to be the main point of your referred research). But... rather than see that, you've jumped to your own defence and start calling StrawMan etc. Quite frankly imo it's ridiculous.
Research backs up the point I'm making - you are trying to expand the research you referred to, to areas it just did not cover, and took issue with the point FFF was making - which was actually factually correct!
It's just a matter of time...
Sorry but I am struggling a bit.
If you’re only talking about the talking bit, the distraction is the same whether you speak to a mike near the rear view mirror or a hand held. Basically, you’re talking. The advantage compared to a discussion with a passenger is that you’re not tempted to make eye contact, as you usually do when interacting with human beings.
However a hand held, as the name suggests, also mobilises a hand, or force your head to lean against your shoulder, which both involve an added distraction not related to the actual conversation.
So much so that the later was banned and the former isn’t.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Even a car driver would IMHO benefit from Keith Codes Twist of the Wrist, which explains concentration on things which become automatic when you do them all the time.
"A Twist of the Wrist," you'll learn all about corners — decreasing-radius ... of the Wrist" is Keith Code's famous "$10 worth of concentration "
Who would have thought you could drive a car with manual gears, without the actual distraction of changing gears becoming such a danger.
Of course, I like the way Keith explains it - but there is lots of research that proves the point too.
It's just a matter of time...
It's just a matter of time...