Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Ric Allan" <(email redacted)>


Your arguments and defense are prepostierous.

It's not a matter of chewing gum and walking.... it's more akin (at times)
to chewing gum and trying to drink milk at the same time. BOTH (OFTEN)
REQUIRE YOUR FULL APPLICATION OF THE SAME THOUGHT FACILTIES.

The 10/10ths in the twisties comparison is (sometimes) also bogus from the
respect that it depends upon whether you're factoring in the safety of
others on the road... at least we presume you ARE watching the road.

If the inappropriate cell phone use were only putting the user in danger,
I'd buy more of your argument. I don't think the problem is danger but
endangering others. The 10/10ths can be done witrhout exposing others to
increased danger. If that is not the case, that instance too is to be
condemned.

..as to the FPS/CB radio comparison to cell phone use... if you're talking
that much on the FPS (or CB), you're abusing the guidelines for
communications on a shared channel. Even then, I prefer to let my passenger
execute those (communications) duties.



-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Gat <(email redacted)>
To: Miatapower <(email redacted)>
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Open House Survey - (Radios)


>
>> I gotta agree with you there, Skip. The use of cell phones is one of the
>> worst hazards on the road today. Wasn't it determined that more people
>
>How much less dangerous is cell phone use than racing through twisties at
>10/10ths, concentrating so hard on the road that a cell phone ring would
>break your concentration? Eh? Seems to me like the guy driving at the
>limit of his car is far more dangerous.
>
>People who can barely drive without a phone are a hazard with a phone.
>People who can carve through a race track for years with no incidents can
>probably better drive on the roads with a cell phone than the average
>schmuck can without a cell phone.
>
>More regulation ("no driving and talking") is NOT the correct answer -
>requiring drivers to know how to drive, might be. (damnit, now I sound
like
>a republican :p)
>
>Joel, avid cell phone user, never crashed, put the phone down if driving or
>traffic so requires.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Joel Gat" <(email redacted)>


Hello,

[must resist urge to continue non pc discussion... argh, I failed... ignore
this post, my last I swear, on this subject unless you're ready for a
soapbox]

> to chewing gum and trying to drink milk at
> the same time. BOTH (OFTEN) REQUIRE
> YOUR FULL APPLICATION OF THE SAME
> THOUGHT FACILTIES.

Note that I said I conduct casual conversation with my clients - ie, objects
and goals for patents, general filing strategy, etc. I'm not talking rocket
science with them unless I have pen, paper, notes, CAD drawings, etc in
front of me - the miata ain't big enough for all those things.

But the point being that IF you need full use of the brain to talk or full
use of the brain to drive, THEN you should do only one at a time - and you
should NOT talk to your passengers.

> The 10/10ths in the twisties comparison is (sometimes)
> also bogus ... factoring in the safety of others on the road...

Oh god! You're seriously smoking crack if you think it's as safe to drive
at 10/10ths as it is to drive at 2/10ths (normal highway cruising to me is
about 2/10ths if that!). Take a turn at 15 mph and imagine what would
happen if a kid came out of the woods or from his hiding spot in the tall
grass even. What would you do? Stop. Now imagine if you're driving at the
limits of adhesion and hitting the brakes hard (or at all) will cause weight
to transfer off the rear wheels and cause you to spin. Your choice when you
see the kid is to kill the kid or crash.

Any time you're mokeying around, imagine if at the instant you think of
this, some little kid jumps out of nowhere - nothing you can see can hide
him but there he was - can you avoid death to the kid, yourself, and any
other cars? If not, then you're as dangerous as any other person not
driving within the limits of the road and devoting 100% attention to the
road.

> at least we presume you ARE watching the road.

Personally, one of the reasons I can drive faster on the track than on the
road is that on the track, I can pay attention 100% to the road and not to
scanning for cops, and defensively imagining what stupid things the other
drivers around me might try doing (well, I sometimes have to do that on the
track too).

> The 10/10ths can be done witrhout exposing others to
> increased danger. If that is not the case, that instance
> too is to be condemned.

Any time you drive hard, you're requiring more than the normal attention to
be paid to the driving task. Any time more of your concentration needs to
be on the task of driving, less is being spent on the environment around
you. Any time that happens, you increase the danger to yourself and those
around you. And as further proof, going 90 instead of 60 increases your
stopping distance by about 100 feet. Imagine that - if you'd travel the
distance of going through 5 or 6 more cars before stopping.

Just because we're car nuts and we love driving hard doesn't make our
illegal tactics any more safe than "normal" drivers. We're no better than
"they" are when we're recklessly endangering others by driving faster than
the speed limit. Don't say greater margin of safety because you know, as
well as I do, that we more than compensate for the greater margin of safety,
at least sometimes.

Joel