 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / July 2005Hands-free still ain't enough...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S THE CONVERSATION. No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally. >>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous > if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally. Hasn't this last paragraph been proven false somewhere/somewhen? I don't have time to google it, but I thought there was a difference in brain patterns/attention/reaction time when you (the driver) are talking to a passenger vs. somebody on a phone.... Of course, I could be completely wrong. brian SignatureIf you want to reply to this message by mail, you will have to change the reply address to beuchaw@beuchaw.net >>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dangerous > if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally. They had a ton of links a month or so ago when chicago passed the cell phone law saying the exact same thing. When i emailed Burt Natarus (the main guy in chicago who wanted it) his exact responce via email was "I am sorry, but you are dead wrong."and went on saying this:"I am attempting to pass a statue state-wise."Thanks!! I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do not agree with you! >>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cells.drivers/index.html?section=cnn_tech > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous > if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally. Yup. I think the solution is to install a monitoring device in the car that issues you a traffic citation if you attempt to talk to a passenger that is in the car. > I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do not > agree with you! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> dangerous >> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally. You are certainly good at contradicting yourself in a single sentence. > I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do >not agree with you! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous >> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.