[geeks] Stuff fo' sale

[Dan Duncan]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > Really?  So how many people driving around you are using handsfree units?
> > How many people are driving while stupid because they're fiddling with
> > the radio, drunk, having a conversation with a passenger, running on too
> > little sleep, or are otherwise distracted?
> >
> > Simple answer:  YOU DON'T KNOW.  Your eyes can't tell you this.
>
> Yes, they can.

You can tell WHY someone is driving poorly?  Wow, you're good.

> When people talk, even hands free, their is unique body language.

Talking to whom?  Themselves, a passenger, someone on the phone, someone
on the radio?  You can tell that?

> Besides, there are also accident reports.

You're psychic?  You can see the accident report of someone who hasn't had
an accident yet?

> Back to eyes: I can also observe people on cell phones while they are
> shopping.  They run into people, run their buggies into displays, stop
> in doorways, and forget the business they are supposed to be doing.

Right.  They don't have the mental aptitude to handle two things at once.
This is why most malls ban gum.  (ok, not really)

> Granted, driving a car is different, but do you really think people do
> better in a car than they do driving a buggy in Wal-Mart?

Not all that different.  Just much more dangerous to others.

> Police and other agencies that have to use communication while driving
> have known about the problem of driving and human communication for
> decades now, which is why police driver training includes communication.
>
> Communication related accidents are very high among rookies and officers
> not trained to communicate in their driving courses.
>
> Why should it be surprising that we see the same results with cell phone
> usage?

Not surprising at all, and I'm already aware of it.

> > I don't displute that using a cellphone can be distracting for
> > drivers.  The studies prove that.  The problem is that moving them to
> > a handsfree setup doesn't accomplish anything.
>
> Doesn't this somewhat contradict what you said earlier?  Or are you
> making a different point here?

Why would it?  I never said using a cellphone was a great idea.  I just said
that using a handheld was no safer than a handsfree.

> Seatbelts save lives, but hey... it could be a slippery slope to the
> government requiring us to held into our cars until we reach a
> pre-selected destination.

Computer-operated gps-enabled seatbelts or what?  (thank you for using Johnnycab?)

> I mean, *ALL* regulation is a slipery slope, potentially.

When you keep in mind that legislators are generally morons, it's a good
idea to keep an eye on them.  They tend to define a goal, somehow guess at
the most idiotic means to that end with no real thought on the matter, and
then write the means up as a law rather than a
measure of the goal itself.  Then of course it doesn't work at all or has
tons of loopholes and they whine about it.  Recent example?  California's
dog tethering bill.  A number of people chain their dogs outside all day,
unattended, and what law do they write? They just make it illegal for
the dog to be out more than 3 hours total in a day.  It doesn't matter
if you're home, or even out in the yard with the dog.  Sorry, Rover, but
you were out for 2 hours this morning and you've just hit the 1 hour mark
for the afternoon.  You have to be inside for the rest of the day while
I work in the garden.  Sorry, buddy, but the covenants won't let me build
a fence and I need to mow the yard so I can't hold on to you.

And people vote for these morons!

-DanD

-- 
#  Dan Duncan (kd4igw)  dand at pcisys.net  http://pcisys.net/~dand
# Save the hermetic seals.