opinions, please: Segways and cell phones

[Lily Kerns]

http://www.cjonline.com/news/local/2009-05-14/mall_segway_user_strike_deal
"McElroy has agreed to operate the Segway at a walking speed, to not use a cell phone while he is riding the Segway and to not use the device on an escalator or on steps, Haney said. He won’t be required to wear a helmet."

In the settlement of this lawsuit against the Simon Properties Group, McElroy agrees not to use a cell phone while riding the Segway. Now that makes as much safety sense as not using one while driving a car. Your attention should be on driving.

My question, however, is whether it makes sense to require a rider to get off the Segway before using a cell phone.

I suspect that in a mall situation, it would make more hassle and take more space to find a place to get off and park the seg in order to use the cell phone. You don't require a driver to get out of the car or a wheelchair user to get out of the wheelchair. The settlement as reported here doesn't specify that exactly but I'm curious as to what your opinions would be, both in general and as in this case for someone using it as a mobility device.

[KSagal]

Personally, I believe that there is a lot of territory marking, and a lot of attempting to cover their butts... And lastly, but not leastly, there is a lot of showing who is the boss, going on...

Personally, I do not agree that it makes sense to limit cell phone use while driving nor anywhere else...

Let me explain. There is a need for people to pay attention to what they are doing, and do it competently, and safely. For many people this means they should not use a cell phone. For many people it means this should mean they should not eat hamburgers. For others, it means they should not have unruly children in the back seat, or their mother in the front seat...

For me, a driver has the responsibility to drive. Anything at all that diminishes the ability to do this correctly, is already codified in law in most states, as being distracted, or however they phrase it...

I recall year ago, I had a radar detector on the dash board, and a cop pulled me over, but since they were not illegal, he warned me about having a device on the dashboard which impeded my ability to clearly see the road. On his own dashboard, he had a video camera, a speed camera, a flashing light, a spotlight, and other items as well. Yet my one small device was an impedance, and all his stuff was not?

It all goes to say that you cannot write a law that supplants common sense. If you do stupid stuff, like lane changes and traffic movements that are inappropriate, and you have a phone to your ear, it is not because of the phone, but rather because you are an inattentive and potentially dangerous driver, who is clearly incapable of doing all the things at the same time that you are trying to do...

I agree with your premise that it is fundamentally unfair that a person on a segway should be treated differently than any other person with particular rules about cell phones and such...

I suspect that a person, on their feet, running thru the mall, on a cell phone, or wearing ear buds and an ipod, would be clearly a disruption and potentially dangerous... I don't see them making special rules for that person...

The rules of the mall need to be simple common sense. Don't act inappropriately, don't endanger other patrons, and don't think that your own convenience outweigh other people's rights to safety and security...

All mall patrons need to pay attention to those rules, if they are on their feet, their wheelchairs, or on their segways...

[GlennO]

I think that this should be an easy one. It is not against the law for anyone in a car to have a cell phone in it too - they just can't use it while they are moving. The end point is that if they want to use it, they would pull over and stop.

If I were to get a ticket for using a cell phone while on my "stopped" Segway, I'd make sure that the officer put down on the ticket that I wasn't moving.

That should do it, no?

Glenn

[SegNerd]

I certainly don't support any added inconveniences for Segway users... but I have to say, I'm not sure using a cell phone on a stopped Segway is such a great idea.

A stopped Segway is different from a stopped car. A stationary car just sits there without you having to do anything; it is really no different from if you were to just put a chair on the ground in the same spot. With a Segway, however, you have to "hold your balance" or remain reasonably still, since leaning even a small amount will make it start moving again.

I know sometimes when I'm waiting for a traffic light or other delay, even a slight distraction can sometimes leave me moving a little forwards or backwards absent-mindedly (I've even lightly backed into poles and walls that way, ouch). Since a cell phone has been proven to be a pretty substantial distraction, I don't think I would feel very safe about making a call while holding still on a Segway.

Disclaimer: I only have experience with my own (first-gen) Segway, and only with my own (lousy) sense of coordination and balance.

[jcargal]

According to one miscreant that I've had the displeasure of meeting recently..."it's only illegal if you get caught".

Perhaps this would apply to cellphone usage on a Segway? Admittedly 90+% of those of us on this board would either be off the unit while placing a call (or stationary) so this may be moot.

[KSagal]

I certainly don't support any added inconveniences for Segway users... but I have to say, I'm not sure using a cell phone on a stopped Segway is such a great idea.

A stopped Segway is different from a stopped car. A stationary car just sits there without you having to do anything; it is really no different from if you were to just put a chair on the ground in the same spot. With a Segway, however, you have to "hold your balance" or remain reasonably still, since leaning even a small amount will make it start moving again.

I know sometimes when I'm waiting for a traffic light or other delay, even a slight distraction can sometimes leave me moving a little forwards or backwards absent-mindedly (I've even lightly backed into poles and walls that way, ouch). Since a cell phone has been proven to be a pretty substantial distraction, I don't think I would feel very safe about making a call while holding still on a Segway.

Disclaimer: I only have experience with my own (first-gen) Segway, and only with my own (lousy) sense of coordination and balance.


I don't know that I can agree with you regarding a car not needing attention while stopped...

I have an automatic transmission, and using your example from the segway, when stopped in traffic, at a traffic light or other delay, I rarely take it out of drive, and just sit there with my foot on the brake...

If I were to be distracted, I could release some pressure on my foot, and the car can easily creep forward (or back). I believe that this is common for many folks and drivers...

If the car were to be put in Park, then you may be right, but that still did require the action from the driver to put it in park...

All I am pointing out is that any argument has it's counter argument.

The bottom line for me is to regulate the responsibility of the operator, not the mechanism of how they go about doing it...

I know many people who are better drivers while making a cell phone call than others who are not talking on the phone... There are all kinds of distractions out there, and the rule should be about not allowing yourself to be distracted while responsible for driving or gliding, not what the manner of the distraction that is allowed and what the manner of the distraction is not allowed...

[KSagal]

I think that this should be an easy one. It is not against the law for anyone in a car to have a cell phone in it too - they just can't use it while they are moving. The end point is that if they want to use it, they would pull over and stop.

If I were to get a ticket for using a cell phone while on my "stopped" Segway, I'd make sure that the officer put down on the ticket that I wasn't moving.

That should do it, no?

Glenn

I don't see it as easy at all, not the way you do. I see no reason not to use a cell phone while driving, if you can do so safely...

I do see that you aught not be allowed to let yourself get distracted. That is the simple part, not having more and more laws about the minutia of life... Is it okay to have a small burger, but not a whopper? I believe that Burger King was pretty clear that it takes two hands to handle a whopper, so clearly, whoppers should be illegal to have in your car, or if you do have one, you need to pull over right away...

According to one miscreant that I've had the displeasure of meeting recently..."it's only illegal if you get caught".

Perhaps this would apply to cellphone usage on a Segway? Admittedly 90+% of those of us on this board would either be off the unit while placing a call (or stationary) so this may be moot.

I have no idea where you got the 90% statistic. It seems interesting to me... I guess by your standard, I am in the 10%, but I do not think the numbers are right.

Just for the record, I do talk on the phone frequently from my car, and from my segway... I use a bluetooth headset, with voice dialing, but that detail has not yet been discussed...

[JohnG]

FWIW, there's a great body of empirical research in the science of driving, and more recently, driving while using a cell phone for conversation or texting. Drivers who do so, generally, have significantly higher rates of inattention. These higher rates of inattention translate into missing key signals while driving, even at low rates of speed.

I'm not sure how much of this translates into Segway usage, but it's something to consider. Obviously you can stop much more quickly on a Segway, but that may not stop a person riding a Segway from being less attentative to environmental cues that could lead to an accident. Caution should be used, obviously, while riding a Segway and being distracted by some other sensory input.

John

[Civicsman]

FWIW, there's a great body of empirical research in the science of driving, and more recently, driving while using a cell phone for conversation or texting. Drivers who do so, generally, have significantly higher rates of inattention. These higher rates of inattention translate into missing key signals while driving, even at low rates of speed.

I'm not sure how much of this translates into Segway usage, but it's something to consider. Obviously you can stop much more quickly on a Segway, but that may not stop a person riding a Segway from being less attentative to environmental cues that could lead to an accident. Caution should be used, obviously, while riding a Segway and being distracted by some other sensory input.

John
I agree that cell phone usage promotes inattention, but so does a whole range of other stuff that remains unregulated.

Segnerd made an interesting point in saying that if you don't pay attention you might back into something. Anyone who has done that, even at very low speed, knows what happens then. Your body weight shifts slightly backwards from inertia and the Seg does what it is designed to do, keep itself underneath you. If you bumped into a human, they might find it inconvenient that the machine was trying to climb their leg.

In the case posed by the OP, I'd be willing to bet that McElroy found a place out of the flow of traffic to use his phone, he would never have a problem with mall security.

[SegwayDan]

FWIW, there's a great body of empirical research in the science of driving, and more recently, driving while using a cell phone for conversation or texting. Drivers who do so, generally, have significantly higher rates of inattention. These higher rates of inattention translate into missing key signals while driving, even at low rates of speed.

I'm not sure how much of this translates into Segway usage, but it's something to consider. Obviously you can stop much more quickly on a Segway, but that may not stop a person riding a Segway from being less attentative to environmental cues that could lead to an accident. Caution should be used, obviously, while riding a Segway and being distracted by some other sensory input.

John

I patently disregard these "studies" as yet more examples of "the tail wagging the dog", in other words, they're bassackwards.

Since when is a device or even an activity with a device the CAUSE of anything? Never. The person themselves is the cause, not devices, not even circumstances. The person, driver, glider, whatever SHOULD be fully capable of doing a couple or even several things at once, or at least judiciously "multi-task" rapidly and efficiently amongst tasks so as to accomplish each safely and efficiently.

More and more rules, if they accomplish anything, only serve to convince the individual that they're stupider than they thought, and that the environment is more dangerous than it actually is. It's a scare tactic to keep the population under control.

[KSagal]

Ever follow a car where the driver had just dropped their lit cigarette into their lap?

How many of us have followed the woman who was putting on makeup?

People following me may have gotten a gander of me using the old Norelco on my noggin...

And don't forget the fact that most chicken nuggets have to be dipped into something...

I would bet that more accidents were caused by spilt coffee than most anything else, if you go back far enough, but unless someone does a 'study' I don't know where you will get the numbers...

This much is likely true... Bluetooth manufacturers may easily be the ones behind the handheld telephone studies, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks will not fund the one on driving with coffee.

Like Dan said, it is the driver, not the thing the driver is doing that is responsible...

To give one more example of our society gone too far... Everytime I start my car, my Garmin Nuvi GPS navigator comes up with a warning telling me not to use it (program it) while driving... Just because of that, I have taken it in and leave it on the living room couch... NOT!

[gbrandwood]

My question, however, is whether it makes sense to require a rider to get off the Segway before using a cell phone.Hi Lily

I have to admit, I have used my mobile/cell phone whilst gliding - both on my Gen1s and my Gen2. Whenever I use it, I always slow down to a very slow speed - probably comparable to just walking along. I have never felt it necessary to stop just because I am on my Segway. I have, on occasion, stopped because I wanted to concentrate on the call and block out the surrounding noise - but I do this when on foot occasionally.

To answer your question directly, I do not think it is necessary to actually step off the machine to take a call - unless you have limited skills at keeping the Segway stationary. I have no problem remaining almost entirely still on the seg, in fact - whilst it may sound a little sad, I still marvel at how little the seg needs to tip one way or another to keep me upright and stationary. So, I have practiced this and feel completely comfortable.

Personally, I don't see any difference on this issue if the user of the Seg is able-bodied or otherwise. - unless they are using a Seg seat (or similar), in which case getting on and off might be a bigger deal. Because, my understanding is able-bodied or otherwise, when using a Seg you need to be competent at stepping on and off the machine. So doing that shouldn't be a problem.

For a long conversation, I would probably find somewhere comfortable to lean and do a "wall lean" (i.e. back against the wall, one foot flat against the wall, knee on the control shaft). This is comfortable and secure and as you say, means you are not taking up much space by remaining on the seg. Stepping off definitely uses up more space and in a busy mall, this is more of an issue.

It's funny this thread should come up as I had just written an entry for an upcoming revision of my Segway code guide. I'll continue to read this thread and see what improvements I can make to my section.

I won't get involved in the debate about whether rules/laws are needed to help prevent against stupidity or irresponsible actions... that sounds like a can of worms that needs it's own thread to fully debate in.

[Civicsman]

I patently disregard these "studies" as yet more examples of "the tail wagging the dog", in other words, they're bassackwards.

Since when is a device or even an activity with a device the CAUSE of anything? Never. The person themselves is the cause, not devices, not even circumstances. The person, driver, glider, whatever SHOULD be fully capable of doing a couple or even several things at once, or at least judiciously "multi-task" rapidly and efficiently amongst tasks so as to accomplish each safely and efficiently.

More and more rules, if they accomplish anything, only serve to convince the individual that they're stupider than they thought, and that the environment is more dangerous than it actually is. It's a scare tactic to keep the population under control.

I'm not so quick to dismiss a boatload of science. It's not perfect, but it's better than almost anyone's guess. There are studies from universities, automotive OEM's and suppliers, insurance companies, safety groups. etc. Even cell phone companies! There is a lot of agreement in these studies (replication of results), and there are far too many different entities to lump together into a semblance of the mythical "they". Is the implication then that these study groups are manipulating data to further their interests, and that their interests are to scare the population to keep it under control?

I certainly can't speak for all studies, but I can say for certain that many studies that evaluate distractions while driving come to similar conclusions. Anything that takes attention off the road reduces one's ability to respond to the primary task at hand, safely operating the vehicle. Automotive suppliers and OEM's began studying this issue in earnest in the early 1990's when in-vehicle telematics systems (in-cab electronics) began proliferating. One company I worked for had an entire department focused on "drivers' aids", such as lane detection technology, to help keep drivers out of trouble when they were playing with the other in-vehicle gadgets.

While I agree that many people regularly do multi-task in their vehicle (or on Segways) without immediately having an accident, the incidence of accidents goes up significantly with in-vehicle distractions. I also agree that it's not the fault or responsibility of the cell phone itself. Rather, it is the use of the instrument by an individual, often combined with the unpredictability of other drivers. It has been demonstrated conclusively that even fully hands-free cell phone usage reduces the ability of a driver to respond to changing road conditions because of the cognitive load of carrying on a conversation.

So perhaps people SHOULD be able to judiciously multi-task safely, but the data says people have problems doing this. I think we can agree that there are a lot of people out there who can barely operate a vehicle without any distractions, let alone with a cellphone in their ear.

[KSagal]

... I think we can agree that there are a lot of people out there who can barely operate a vehicle without any distractions, let alone with a cellphone in their ear.


If this is so, then why are we discussing new laws about cell phones? Would it not make more sense to concentrate on the task at hand, rather than muddy the water with ancillary topics that distract us from the real problem?

If we hold people accountable to driving properly, the rest just falls away. We don't need to have a whole bunch laws that regulate the minutia of every day life.

[SegwayDan]

The fallacy in these studies is that they concentrate only on the results or effects of various actions or situations, never on the cause (the cause being the individual person--never a thing or object or situation). That's why I said previously that it's the "tail wagging the dog".

No stack of laws is going to keep stupid, irresponsible people from violating them. No stack of laws is going to protect the rest of us from their actions. The only thing stacks of laws will accomplish will be a police state where NO ONE is ALLOWED to be responsible for their actions.

"Believing" in such studies is merely buying into this insidious propaganda of the would-be slave masters. It's distinctly irresponsible.

[Civicsman]

...
If we hold people accountable to driving properly, the rest just falls away. We don't need to have a whole bunch laws that regulate the minutia of every day life.

Well, yeah, but we already hold people accountable for driving properly. We have laws for driving with due care which catches the minor stuff, and ranging up through manslaughter and negligent homicide for the really stupid stuff. The problem is that these laws kick in after the fact. There are a lot of people who do not perceive their activities (take cell phone use as the example) to be interfering with their driving...right up until they snuff out the life of some innocent person. Some people need to be told, specifically, that particular activities are unsafe and therefore not allowed. Personally, I believe the gene pool is improved if such individuals remove themselves, but the unfortunate reality is they often remove someone else too. In addition, our courts regularly overturn laws that give overly-generic powers to the police. Police can't use "due care" before a driver does something stupid. Laws to prevent people from harming others must be relatively specific (like smoking laws, perhaps). Otherwise, Officer Stedenko will be stopping people for whatever HE thinks is appropriate, and we don't want that...do we?

It's a really big step for me to dismiss science out of hand, and to believe that all of the organizations who do such studies are somehow orchestrated to generate propaganda for would-be slave-masters. Which would-be slave-masters are being referred to?

[Wireczar]

I patently disregard these "studies" as yet more examples of "the tail wagging the dog", in other words, they're bassackwards.

Since when is a device or even an activity with a device the CAUSE of anything? Never. The person themselves is the cause, not devices, not even circumstances. The person, driver, glider, whatever SHOULD be fully capable of doing a couple or even several things at once, or at least judiciously "multi-task" rapidly and efficiently amongst tasks so as to accomplish each safely and efficiently.

More and more rules, if they accomplish anything, only serve to convince the individual that they're stupider than they thought, and that the environment is more dangerous than it actually is. It's a scare tactic to keep the population under control.

Why not do what I do, leave any and all Cell phones where they belong: In the Bottomm Drawer of the Kitchen Cabinets, waayyyy in the Back! Problem is gone.

[Wireczar]

The fallacy in these studies is that they concentrate only on the results or effects of various actions or situations, never on the cause (the cause being the individual person--never a thing or object or situation). That's why I said previously that it's the "tail wagging the dog".

No stack of laws is going to keep stupid, irresponsible people from violating them. No stack of laws is going to protect the rest of us from their actions. The only thing stacks of laws will accomplish will be a police state where NO ONE is ALLOWED to be responsible for their actions.

"Believing" in such studies is merely buying into this insidious propaganda of the would-be slave masters. It's distinctly irresponsible.

AMEN, that is the short truth of it all

[KSagal]

Well, yeah, but we already hold people accountable for driving properly. We have laws for driving with due care which catches the minor stuff, and ranging up through manslaughter and negligent homicide for the really stupid stuff. The problem is that these laws kick in after the fact. There are a lot of people who do not perceive their activities (take cell phone use as the example) to be interfering with their driving...right up until they snuff out the life of some innocent person. Some people need to be told, specifically, that particular activities are unsafe and therefore not allowed. Personally, I believe the gene pool is improved if such individuals remove themselves, but the unfortunate reality is they often remove someone else too. In addition, our courts regularly overturn laws that give overly-generic powers to the police. Police can't use "due care" before a driver does something stupid. Laws to prevent people from harming others must be relatively specific (like smoking laws, perhaps). Otherwise, Officer Stedenko will be stopping people for whatever HE thinks is appropriate, and we don't want that...do we?

It's a really big step for me to dismiss science out of hand, and to believe that all of the organizations who do such studies are somehow orchestrated to generate propaganda for would-be slave-masters. Which would-be slave-masters are being referred to?


Officer Stedenko, nice name. May even get past the moderators with that one...

Regardless of the fear you have of a police officer exercising due care to make people drive better, your logic differs from mine on several layers...

Let's start with the fact that we are not talking about a perfect driver who picks up a cell phone and becomes Mr. Hyde behind the wheel. We have all (I suspect) followed or seen the distracted driver do something stupid (inappropriate lane change, exiting from the 2nd lane, whatever) and then seen them on the phone... If you and I have seen it, so has the cop. He can now stop them for that thing, but as you said, the courts do not take proper driving seriously.

So the answer is the dash camera. If you and I and the cop saw it out his windshield, so did his camera. Enter that in court, and the problem goes away...

People rarely get caught the first time they do something dumb. People often claim it, but that is just not so. How many times do people that have just been bit by a dog hear from the owner that their dog never did that before? How often do speed cops hear that the driver never speeds or has never sped before? It is just not so.

Now, as to your claim that you don't want to throw out science. That is noble. However, we are not talking about science, but rather statistics. And we all know there are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.

I would wager that you could get most surveys and polls to say mostly anything you really wanted to prove, if you tried hard enough... Ask enough questions about whether you walk to work, or carry your lunch, and you will get any result you like.

I am not saying that cell phone use and increased accidents do not have any common factors, or are even not contributory to each other, just that the cell phone itself is not the cause of the problem, but rather the symptom, and the cause is irresponsible drivers who place too little emphasis on driving well, and too much on their personal lives, to the expense of other drivers and others in their way.

Tell me now, are you really saying that you feel it is more likely at any given point that a person eating a Big Mac has better control over his car, than a person using his Onstar? I would love to see your science here...

When people claim that facts are facts, and to deny them is wrong, I get nervous... Several times on this thread, people have made statements that are simply not true. They make presumptions, and present them as more than just their guesses, or person opinions, wholly unsupported by facts. One was the 90% claim earlier, and another was your assertion that we don't want a cop to use his own judgement, do we? Well, some of us do. Some of us are tired of hobbling the cops and then tell them to do their job anyway.

By the way, I am all for holding the cops responsible for their actions as well. I see no reason not to ask them to support their actions with evidence as well. I do not see the need to castigate any group, all are responsible for their actions, and all will (should) pay the price for failing in their responsibilites.

A further point that needs to be considered. There are very real forces in today's society that are trying to diminish the individual in many ways. These forces are trying to blame society for mostly any thing that is wrong, but also not hold any individual person accountable for their own behaviour... How often have we heard of a mean, hostile criminal who is excused because he had a rough childhood? His mom is the cause of his needing to hurt people is the common cry, when if you ask that person, they will almost always say something different.

There are indeed many people who feel that many of the simple values of yesteryear are archaic, and need to be re-worked. The very definition of words, the very structures of family and society needs to be changed... I have my views on these concepts, but if you agree or not is not my point, the fact that there are indeed these forces in society are my point...

And if you think that the society itself, and its wants and values do not affect the 'social science' of that society, you are mistaken... History is full of scientific fact that is accepted and worked, for a time. Then the society changes, and those facts are found to be incomplete at best, false or manipulated at worse. It happens all the time...

[SegwayDan]

AMEN, that is the short truth of it all

Glad I could help! ;-)

[Wireczar]

If this is so, then why are we discussing new laws about cell phones? Would it not make more sense to concentrate on the task at hand, rather than muddy the water with ancillary topics that distract us from the real problem?

If we hold people accountable to driving properly, the rest just falls away. We don't need to have a whole bunch laws that regulate the minutia of every day life.

Wait just a minute! You cannot hold people responsible for anything> This is the PC era 2009

[SegwayDan]

. . .It's a really big step for me to dismiss science out of hand, and to believe that all of the organizations who do such studies are somehow orchestrated to generate propaganda for would-be slave-masters. Which would-be slave-masters are being referred to?

I can see your point. It's just not fair that we could be tricked so thoroughly and for so long. But then it's so much easier and so much more comfortable to "just believe" in something without question, isn't it.

[Civicsman]

As often seems to be the case, this string has veered wildly off course into whether society has the right to change it's beliefs, whether science works, and whether would-be slave-masters are behind everything. (And I still want to know who they are, so I can keep an eye out for them!)

I'll just say (as I said before), that there is overwhelming evidence from widely-independent sources that anything that takes attention off the road reduces one's ability to respond to the primary task at hand, safely operating the vehicle. This applies to everyone, even "perfect" drivers. However, some people choose to believe that they are outside of the population data set and the test results therefore do not apply to them. They have every right to hold this opinion of themselves.

I wonder, however, whether the "hold them accountable after the fact" folks are comfortable with their airline pilot, cabbie, or subway driver being on a cell phone while working? After all, they haven't crashed yet, so there is clearly no reason not to let them keep yakking away.

[Civicsman]

I can see your point. It's just not fair that we could be tricked so thoroughly and for so long. But then it's so much easier and so much more comfortable to "just believe" in something without question, isn't it.

Personally, I'm sort of partial to thinking things through for myself, on an item-by-item basis. Where can one find the information (which you clearly already possess) that leads to conclusion that science worldwide is manipulated by would-be slave-masters?

[KSagal]

As often seems to be the case, this string has veered wildly off course into whether society has the right to change it's beliefs, whether science works, and whether would-be slave-masters are behind everything. (And I still want to know who they are, so I can keep an eye out for them!)

I'll just say (as I said before), that there is overwhelming evidence from widely-independent sources that anything that takes attention off the road reduces one's ability to respond to the primary task at hand, safely operating the vehicle. This applies to everyone, even "perfect" drivers. However, some people choose to believe that they are outside of the population data set and the test results therefore do not apply to them. They have every right to hold this opinion of themselves.

I wonder, however, whether the "hold them accountable after the fact" folks are comfortable with their airline pilot, cabbie, or subway driver being on a cell phone while working? After all, they haven't crashed yet, so there is clearly no reason not to let them keep yakking away.


Let's look at just what I highlighted...

I am not contesting that distracted drivers are less able to be good drivers. All I am contesting is that you should blame the cell phone use. I notice how you refuse to answer any questions about the relative distraction of cell phone use compared to eating, or smoking, or drinking coffee, or whatever...

I submit that all of the above are distractions that will eventually cause problems, and it is the driver's responsibility to keep these distractions under control, not the State's responsibility to allow this distraction, but disallow that distraction.

You state that this evidence is widely-independent and overwhelming. Neither are fact, but mearly your opinion. You state how important facts are to you, but these are not. I believe there is all kinds of perspectives on this...

Have you noticed that you keep re-directing your response against the responses of others? I have not read anyone say that cell phones do not distract, yet you keep hammering that they do... I see this particular point in the debate being that some are saying that cell phones or other distractions are all the responsibility of the driver to control, and it does not matter what particular distraction we are speaking about... You seem to be saying that this or that study has proven that cell phones are a distraction, and therefore cause worse driving...

We all agree, cell phones do not make drivers pay attention as much. But where we disagree is on who needs to be held accountable to keep the drivers paying attention. I say the drivers...

You mentioned a pilot on a cell phone... Please answer if you would feel better being on a plane that crashed because the pilot was speaking to his co-pilot about the weather, instead of talking on the phone?

What you do not seem to want to recognise in those who are debating with you is that the distraction is the problem, not the type of distraction...

So, if you eliminate cell phones from cars, are people not going to be distracted anymore? I seem to recall that cars did sometimes crash 20 years ago, before there were cell phones...

The problem is not the particular distraction, in my opinion, but the fact that the driver would rather pay attention to the distraction, whatever it is, than to driving...

[JohnM]

"Insidious propaganda of the would-be slave masters", wow!
I'm going to file that just after "running dog lackies of the military-industrial complex", but before "capitalist wage-slaves of the Wall Street empirialists".

To the barricades!

[Civicsman]

I notice how you refuse to answer any questions about the relative distraction of cell phone use compared to eating, or smoking, or drinking coffee, or whatever...

I didn't refuse any such thing. I specifically said "anything", which I think includes....well....anything I am writing about in-cab distractions, of which cell phone use is a good example because it is ubiquitous and unnecessary to the operation of the vehicle.

You state that this evidence is widely-independent and overwhelming. Neither are fact, but mearly your opinion. You state how important facts are to you, but these are not. I believe there is all kinds of perspectives on this...

Surely there are all kinds of perspectives, but I'm concerned with ones that can be supported. I believe the studies. You believe my belief in the studies is merely an opinion.

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

http://www.nsc.org/resources/issues/factsheet.aspx

http://www.newsdial.com/technology/communication/cell-phone-statistics.html

I didn't review these to be sure they support my position, they're just the top items that came up in a Google search, after eliminating the law firms offering to help you if you've been hurt by a dazed and confused driver on a cell phone.

I found one study that claimed there was no relationship between cell phone use and accidents. The press release is here http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/08/13_cellphone.shtml I'll note that the press release states that the results of the two grad students (in economics) "runs counter to the conclusions of more than 125 other studies, [and] 70 percent of Americans in a 2003 Gallup Poll who said drivers on cell phones cause accidents", and that one of the authors said that he had "almost crashed twice" while using a cell phone on a road trip.

So we should all latch onto this one report and ignore the other 125 because it supports preconceived beliefs? I'd be happy to review some science (independent corroboration & peer review) that says cell phones and other in-cab distractions (<<note!) have no effect on driver attention and the resulting quality of piloting of the vehicle. I highly doubt this can be produced.

Have you noticed that you keep re-directing your response against the responses of others? I have not read anyone say that cell phones do not distract, yet you keep hammering that they do...

Well, there's an implication that cell phones do not distract drivers, since the studies saying they DO distract are apparently "insidious propaganda of the would-be slave masters".

I have stated at least once (twice, I think), that cell phones are an example of an in-cab distraction. Personally, I believe (<<<note disclaimer) that cell phone use is far more pervasive today, and apparently more distracting, than most other in-cab distractions. I saw 10 people on the way to work yakking on their phones, and one of them spaced out completely in the middle of an intersection, losing track of time and failing to notice that the stoplight had changed. I didn't see anyone eating, doing make up, or reading. Cell phone use is common, and the problems it causes are common, which is why it is a target for regulation. If eating Whoppers while driving was as big a problem (in studies and in public perception) then THAT would be a target for regulation.

We all agree, cell phones do not make drivers pay attention as much. But where we disagree is on who needs to be held accountable to keep the drivers paying attention. I say the drivers...

We're back to our fundamental perspectives of idealism vs pragmatism. As a pragmatic person, I ask how, exactly, do you keep the distracted driver from running into YOU? Yeah, your heirs can sue them for their failure of responsibility. That'll teach 'em. See below.


You mentioned a pilot on a cell phone... Please answer if you would feel better being on a plane that crashed because the pilot was speaking to his co-pilot about the weather, instead of talking on the phone?

But you didn't answer my question about whether you would be comfortable with pilots, cabbies, and subway drivers yakking on the phone. I know I'd feel more comfortable hearing a pilot asking about in-flight weather than hearing him chat up his girlfriend during the flight. Somehow, I'm guessing I'll get a lot of agreement on this point.

You claimed that people should be responsible for making proper decisions, and should not arbitrarily denied access to distractions, such as cell phones. Both you and SegwayDan contend that people SHOULD be able to multi-task properly. Your argument therefore contends that people such as pilots should be free to yak away. If they don't crash, they're handling the multi-tasking properly. If they do crash, they are personally responsible and will be held accountable...somehow. I am sure this is comforting to the familes of the 25 people who died in LA because their train engineer was texting. He SHOULD have been able to multi-task better.

So, if you eliminate cell phones from cars, are people not going to be distracted anymore? I seem to recall that cars did sometimes crash 20 years ago, before there were cell phones...

The argument is specious. Of course there would still be crashes, but a major cause of distraction (and crashes) will have been removed.

[KSagal]

You put lots of words in my mouth, that did not come from there...

There are states that have banned cell phone use. Did the accident rate drop precipitously in those states? Show me that study. (and make it real, not spun)

Just because you infer that I support cell phone use in cars, and therefore refute your 125 studies, I must agree with the one errant study, according to your statement. It is laughable. If I felt that way, I would have said that. I did not, because I do not feel that way.

I do believe that weak drivers, who do not have their priorities correct, will use a phone and that will enhance their weakness. The solution to this is not to allow them to drive poorly with a sandwich, or while talking to the kids in the back of the car, and deny them the phone, the solution is to hold them accountable to the way they drive...

I have said many times that poor driving does not instantly start when you pick up a cell phone, nor does an accident have to be the only form of identifying a person who is driving poorly...

You mentioned 10 people who were driving and talking on a cell phone. Were any of them driving poorly, yet did not cause an accident? Why, yes. You mentioned that one did not obey the traffic signal because of their distraction... If that person got a ticket for doing that, do you not think it may affect the way that they sit at traffic lights and consider talking on the phone? I think it might. I do not know the traffic laws on the moon, and you mentioned I should not care about that (I am surprised there were 10 other drivers on the moon, come to think of it, and I wonder how they get cell service up there anyway...) but in this state, it is a breach of the law to not obey a traffic signal.

Perhaps where you live it is not a breach of an already existing law to not obey a traffic signal?

Do your research. The FAA released this week the recordings of the pilots on that ill fated crash in Buffallo this winter and they were talking about the weather, against FAA rules, and not paying attention to what they were required by law to pay attention to, at the altitude they were at... It did not end well, yet none of them had cell phones...

The answer is not a list of distractions that are illegal, and a list of distractions that are legal, but a strengthening of the laws that say we have to be accountable for our actions...

Speeding tickets are a fact of life. We all know there is a revenue generation component to them, but there are other factors as well... People get speeding tickets to make them, or encourage them to slow down... There are likely as many studies that equate excess speed to accidents as there are to cell phones that cause accidents... Yet most speeding tickets are not given posthumously. Why do you say that distracted driver tickets can only be given that way?

Back to the 10 drivers you saw on phones... Did you identify they were on the phone before or after you observed their driving? I have seen drivers in front of me, and often could guess that they were distracted, only later to catch up to them and see they were on the phone, were apparently drunk, seemed to be having an animated conversation with kids in the back seat, and several other things...

SO, did you see the phone first, or the driving style first?

Be careful, any answer could have problems for your arguments....

IF you could identify at least some of the drivers as being distracted before you saw their phones, then the same could be said for professional traffic law enforcement officers... That is their job. If that is the case, then it is likely that they are demonstrating that they were driving without proper care for others in the road, and were perhaps breaking laws... (like lane change indicators, failure to obey posted signs, failure to obey traffic signals, etc) If you could identify them in advance, there is no need for a cell phone ban.

If you could not identify them till you saw the phone to their ear, you could say that they were not breaking any traffic laws, or indicating that they could not obey the traffic signals and also talk on the phone... Then they are just people who you have profiled as being more likely to cause you a risk, because of their chosen, yet not illegal behavior...

I seem to recall an argument that you used about identification on this forum and that there was no rule about being revealing as to your name and location... You stated clearly that since there was no rule against it, you were clearly not doing anything that should be held against you, by anybody... Now, in this instance with the apparently competent drivers, who chose to do something that is not against the rules, YOU are the one who is casting aspersions... If they are not breaking the rules, and are not driving in a way that distinguishes them from other non-cell drivers, where is the value in a law to ban that activity at that moment?

Lastly, and I will state this again, as I have in most of my other posts, I do believe that excessive or inappropriate cell phone use will eventually get the user into trouble, as no one can serve two masters. Eventually there will be a conflict... I do agree here. The only place that I differ from you is that I know the solution is not a ban on cell phones, but an increase in accountablity on the driver. You just do not feel that way, and feel that the driver is not able to differnciate their priorities without this cell phone ban... I guess it comes down to that...

You can continue to slam the point home that cell phones cause problems, or the use of cell phones cause problems but you have not convinced me... I believe that the cell phone in the kitchen drawer, all the way at the back, is supstantially the same item that is in the ear of the 10 drivers you saw this morning... I believe the difference lies in the people who own those phones...

Why is it that when people speed in their cars, the driver gets the ticket, not the car? Why is it that when people drive drunk, the driver gets in trouble, not the car? Why is it that when the phone rings in the theatre, the person is who gets the dirty looks, not the phone? Why is it that when ... You get my point...

Small pieces of plastic and electronics, with a transmitter and receiver, are not the responsible party here...

[Civicsman]

You wanted studies showing cell phones (and other distractions) caused accidents. I gave you those. In response, you changed the demand. Some, if not all, of the answers to those demands are in those reports, but I simply can not change anyone's perception of reality.

The studies say there are a lot of things that distract drivers and cause crashes. That's what I said. The studies say that cell phones are near the top of that list because use of a cell phone is so prevalent.. That's what I said.

I'll have to leave it to other members to read those reports and decide for themselves.

I notice you still didn't answer the question about whether you think it's just fine for your pilot to be chatting on a cell phone during flight. He SHOULD be able to "to differnciate their priorities" during the flight, so there's no reason to ban cell phone use for pilots during flight. I'm sure they can handle it.

I do believe you are correct that some people are more able to handle multi-tasking than others, but you continue to ignore my point. The data, empirical, anecdotal, or whatever, shows that there are apparently a LOT of people who are incapable of making good decisions when using cell phones and driving. How does KSagal protect his family from those people?

[KSagal]

You know, it is kind of funny... The last several posts I posed questions that you do not acknowledge. I ask them again, and you said that I am not answering your questions...

Okay, I know that a commercial pilot is behind a closed and locked door, and he is a professional. Do I want him to be or have access to a cell phone? I have no problem at all with it. All I ask is that he is competent and professional in his duties. If those duties allow time for a cell phone conversation, and he can maintain his awareness of that which he needs to do, I have no problem with it...

I know lots of competent professionals who can talk on a phone while doing something else, either augmented by the phone such as me when I provide telephone support or get telephone support to service the client where I am, or in addition to other duties such as providing telephone support to clients while I am at another site doing something else.

From time to time, my wife will call me, and if I can talk without it hampering my performance, I speak to her, and if it will, I either do not take the call and let it go to voicemail, or I answer and tell her I will talk to her later...

It is not really that hard.

By the way, I do not know your history, but I am also a pilot, and have posted so on this forum in the past... I am not altogether unfamiliar with the duties of a commercial pilot.

How about us going back and seeing what other questions the other has asked that we did not get to answer yet?...

[KSagal]

I know you believe that the links you posted prove your point, that cellphones are dangerous, but I used the first link, and the findings are all over the place, they contradict themselves and your point...

After all that, I do not disagree that using a cell phone is a distraction, only that the solution to a distraction for me it to keep it in its proper priority, and you seem to feel that banning that particular distraction is a better solution...

I copied the first page from the first link you provided... I will post it here, and make my points... IN the interest of brevity, which is not my strong suit, I will truncate some of the points made...

Begin Paste...
Cellphones and Driving
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gifTHE TOPIC
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gif
MAY 2009
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gif
Increased reliance on cellphones has led to a rise in the number of people who use the devices while driving. There are two dangers associated with driving and cellphone use, including text messaging. First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while dialing. Second, people can become so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the act of driving is severely impaired, jeopardizing the safety of vehicle occupants and pedestrians. Since the first law was passed in New York in 2001 banning hand-held cellphone use while driving, there has been debate as to the exact nature and degree of hazard. The latest research shows that while using a cellphone when driving may not be the most dangerous distraction, because it is so prevalent it is by far the most common cause of this type of crash and near crash. (I added the bold. This comment says that it is not the most dangerous distraction... An important point that I made before, in that you seem to go for the more common distractions, rather than the ones most likely to cause an accident in your cellphone ban...)
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gifhttp://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gifRECENT DEVELOPMENTS
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gif



Studies: Studies about cellphone use while driving have focused on several different aspects of the problem. Some have looked at its prevalence as the leading cause of driver distraction. Others have looked at the different risks associated with hand-held and hands-free devices. Still others have focused on the seriousness of injuries in crashes involving cellphone users and the demographics of drivers who use cellphones. Below is a summary of some recent research on the issue.
In May 2008 the Public Policy Institute of California released a study, “What to Expect from California’s New Hands-Free Law,” which looks at the potential effect of a new state law prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cellphones. Based on the experience of the three states (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) and Washington, D.C., where similar laws are already in effect, researchers concluded that the ban will reduce traffic deaths by about 300 a year, but only in adverse conditions, such as on wet or icy roads. The analysis also found that because of the relatively modest penalties for using hand-held phones, and no prohibition against dialing and texting, even strict enforcement of the law might not discourage drivers from using their cellphones while driving. (Again, I added the bold and color, but this study was not about cellphone use, but the effect of this law. It clearly states that the focus of this study was to guage the impact of a law recently passed, not to study if that law would be needed... and even then, it said that the law would not be particularly effective, because it was not orwellian enough)
In July 2007 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Center for Statistics and Analysis released the results of their National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), which found that in 2006 5 percent of drivers used hand-held cellphones, down from 6 percent in 2005, the first decline since the survey began tracking hand-held cellphone use in 2000. The decline in use occurred in a number of driver categories, including female drivers (down from 8 to 6 percent), drivers in the Midwest (down from 8 to 4 percent), drivers age 25 to 69 (down from 6 to 4 percent) and drivers of passenger cars (down from 6 to 4 percent) to name but a few. NOPUS is a probability-based observational survey. Data on driver cellphone use were collected at random stop signs or stoplights only while vehicles were stopped and only during daylight hours. (Please note the percentages offered in this collection of facts)
A survey of dangerous driver behavior was released in January 2007 by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. The survey of 1,200 drivers found that 73 percent talk on cellphones while driving. Cellphone use was highest among young drivers. (Please note the overwhelming consistancy in the facts from this study to the one above it... Seems that there is not a clear consensus as to what is a fact)
Text messaging, or “texting” by teens, a driving distraction related to cellphone use, was the subject of an August 2006 Teens Today survey conducted by the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD). The survey showed that teens considered sending text messages via cellphones to be their biggest distraction. Of the teens surveyed, 37 percent said that text messaging was extremely or very distracting, while 20 percent said that they were distracted by their emotional states and 19 percent said that having friends in the car was distracting. The January 2007 survey by Nationwide found that 19 percent of motorists say they text message while driving.( if you skip up a paragraph or two, it seems that about 3 times as many youths are distracted by their emotions and about 3 times by their friends as the 4 to 8% who use cellphones... I guess it makes a difference to consider what is a fact and how it is collected, because these two seem to indicate that emotional friends are 600% more likely to cause a problem than a cell phone... Perhaps we should ban emotions or friends... I think that the driving laws on Volcan do that...)
Motorists who use cellphones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves, according to a study of drivers in Perth, Australia, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The results, published in July 2005, suggest that banning hand-held phone use will not necessarily improve safety if drivers simply switch to hand-free phones. The study found that injury crash risk didn't vary with type of phone. (Interesting study here. Are you sure you want to include this one in your argument for a cell phone ban?)
Many studies have shown that using hand-held cellphones while driving can constitute a hazardous distraction. However, the theory that hands-free sets are safer has been challenged by the findings of several studies. A study from researchers at the University of Utah, published in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, concludes that talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, even if the phone is a hands-free model. An earlier study by researchers at the university found that motorists who talked on hands-free cellphones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.
A September 2004 study from the NHTSA found that drivers using hand-free cellphones had to redial calls 40 percent of the time, compared with 18 percent for drivers using hand-held sets, suggesting that hands-free sets may provide drivers with a false sense of ease.
A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), breaks new ground. (Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30 percent of crashes.) The new study found that the most common distraction is the use of cellphones, followed by drowsiness. However, cellphone use is far less likely to be the cause of a crash or near-miss than other distractions, according to the study. For example, while reaching for a moving object such as a falling cup increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by nine times, talking or listening on a hand-held cellphone only increased the risk by 1.3 times. The study tracked the behavior of the 241 drivers of 100 vehicles for more than one year. The drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near-crashes and 8,295 critical incidents.(wow, it looks like this study agrees with me that coffee in the car needs to be banned before cell phones)
These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cellphones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers. That study was based on the analysis of videotapes from cameras installed in the vehicles of 70 drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.(Ut, oh! another one that agrees with Karl, and says that banning cell phones will not get you your desired result!)
...
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gifhttp://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gifBACKGROUND
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gif
Cellphones play an integral role in our society. However, the convenience they offer must be judged against the hazards they pose. Inattentive driving accounted for 6.4 percent of crash fatalities in 2003—the latest data available—according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Inattentive driving includes talking, eating, putting on make up and attending to children. Using cellphones and other wireless or electronic units are also considered distractions.(Seems at least some in the US DOT do not see the cell phone as a singular solution)

...
http://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gifhttp://www.iii.org/img/pxl.gif© Insurance Information Institute, Inc. - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



So, you said I do not use your research, and it showed all kinds of things, if you look for them. There is no right solution, there is no simple solution. There is no list of banned activities that will be effective.

The only solution that I see, especially after finding so much support in these studies, is to have the driver be held more accountable to to avoiding any distractions...

Now, how about a few answers to my questions?

[Gihgehls]

If your posts didn't look like essays your questions would probably be more noticeable. Just my 2 cents. This goes for both of you. Just my 2 cents.

[KSagal]

If your posts didn't look like essays your questions would probably be more noticeable. Just my 2 cents. This goes for both of you. Just my 2 cents.


Good point. In my own defense, I did say that brevity is not my strong suit, but that is not really a defense. As wierd as it may be to say this, I too find extreamly long posts very tiring...

[Civicsman]

The latest research shows that while using a cellphone when driving may not be the most dangerous distraction, because it is so prevalent it is by far the most common cause of this type of crash and near crash. (I added the bold. This comment says that it is not the most dangerous distraction... An important point that I made before, in that you seem to go for the more common distractions, rather than the ones most likely to cause an accident in your cellphone ban...

Where, pray tell, do I argue for a "cellphone ban"? From my first post, I have REPEATEDLY said that there are a range of in-cab disturbances that distract drivers.

I submit that it is not possible for us to have a meaningful discussion of the situation. For example, the selective bolding of the text and your following comment completely contradicts the full (and clear) meaning of the entire sentence. Read in full context, the sentence says using a cell phone is by far the most common cause of this type of crash and near crash. Whether this misrepresentation was intentional or not, I do not know, but in the end it makes no difference as far as having a meaningful discussion is concerned.

While I am glad that you have finally read one of the links, I have no intention of getting suckered into a discussion of a summary of multiple studies, only to have you dismiss all arguments at the end with "I don't trust studies anyway".

As I said, readers can look at the posted links and make informed decisions for themselves.

In my first post, I said, "I agree that cell phone usage promotes inattention, but so does a whole range of other stuff that remains unregulated."

In my second post, I went on to say that, "many studies that evaluate distractions while driving come to similar conclusions. Anything that takes attention off the road reduces one's ability to respond to the primary task at hand, safely operating the vehicle. "
...
"While I agree that many people regularly do multi-task in their vehicle (or on Segways) without immediately having an accident, the incidence of accidents goes up significantly with in-vehicle distractions. I also agree that it's not the fault or responsibility of the cell phone itself. Rather, it is the use of the instrument by an individual, often combined with the unpredictability of other drivers. It has been demonstrated conclusively that even fully hands-free cell phone usage reduces the ability of a driver to respond to changing road conditions because of the cognitive load of carrying on a conversation.

So perhaps people SHOULD be able to judiciously multi-task safely, but the data says people have problems doing this."

I am on solid ground with this perspective.

After those posts, the discussion devolved into personal perspectives about whether society has the right to change it's beliefs, whether science works, and whether would-be slave-masters are manipulating data to control the population. (..and WHY won't anyone say who those slave-masters are?)

[mark1qhorsey]

I love the thought: Inattentive Gliding! Sadly, as our society ramps up its population
the inattentiveness of gliding may slide away :(

[KSagal]

There are all kinds of missed communications here...

You will not find any reference at all from me about a Master-slave relationship. I believe you were the first to bring that up, I can only guess as a personal interpretation of something someone else said. I never even went near there...

I did not quote any entire sentences, but tried to point out the various contradictions from the studies at that link. You say that my comment contradicts the full (and clear) meaning of the entire sentence, yet I clearly do not agree. I guess this is why you said that we should all read them for ourselves, but since I did that, and you do not agree with my understanding of what I read, I have to ask, why do you want me to read these things?

I agree with your point that we should all read them, but if we have different conclusions from what we read than you do, does that mean that our interpretation has less validity than yours? I don't think so.

I have tried hard to meet you part way. I would appreciate the same. I asked several questions and you have not responded to them. I really would enjoy hearing your reaction or answers to them. I did give you the courtesy of answering your questions, and also did read your links, and gave my interpretations, even though you told me that my thoughts are invalid, and we cannot have a meaningful discussion if EITHER one of us dismisses the other's perspective. If we do not listen and react to the other, then it is not a discussion, but two opposing monologues.

I do have a very different view on this topic than you... To quote you, "You wanted studies showing cell phones (and other distractions) caused accidents." I maintain that cell phones do not cause accidents. I maintain that distracted drivers do, and it matters less to me what distracts them...

I commented that I felt that those studies contradicted each other, and you ignored that, while telling me that we cannot have a discussion...

I agree. We cannot, if both of us do not try. Your dismissal of my points as being invalid because I do not agree with you demonstrates this well...

Please, if we set aside our mutual differences on the studies I took so much effort to comment on, I still would like to hear your answer to some of the questions I asked...

[Bob.Kerns]

I ought to jump into this, but I really don't have the time right now. Especially not to get into long point-by-point rebuttals and such, so don't expect that sort of response from me at the moment. I apologize in advance if I don't respond to questions or whatever; it'll have nothing to do with you.

(Karl: though your long sets of questions inspired this disclaimer, it's not directed specifically at you, nor a criticism).

So I'll just do a single long dump, with no promise to respond. I hope there's something worth the time, nonetheless.

It all starts with a question, posed as a testable hypothesis. An experiment is designed, data is gathered, often as a statistic (a smaller sample chosen from a larger population). Then this statistic is subjected to statistical analysis, which is then interpreted by the authors and submitted for publication. Back-and-forth with the reviewers, hopefully strengthening the paper by eliminating the weaker interpretations.

If successful, the paper is published, at which point the media get hold of it, and various interest groups, each of which interpret it according to their selective filters and often outright misunderstanding, which is how most of us will have heard of these studies.

From there it makes its way to the legislators, who want to appear busy and productive, and so someone introduces a law.

It is important to note that at this point the law is NOT based on science. No scientific study has been done at this point, nor even planned, which examines the impact such a law will have. Often the law will be even based on a complete misunderstanding of the original science.

Once the law has passed and been implemented, then, MAYBE, scientific study of the impact of the law on the original issue. (That has happened with the cell phone usage). Unfortunately, it is very difficult to sort out all the different things involved here, because there usually was no study designed in advance for comparing this one issue before and after. So these studies are less than ideal.

More importantly, they generally have no impact on policy -- no laws will be modified or repealed as a result. Occasionally, they'll result in a strengthening.

But it's important to note that all this science does NOT, will NOT, can NOT answer the question "should we HAVE this law"?, nor even "what KIND of law should we have?" It's important input to that question, but the trade-offs between freedom, responsibility, loss of economic activity, loss of time, kids left at risk because of coordination failures in picking them up from after-school activities, medical breakthroughs delayed because a researcher didn't get a call...

And the cost of having a law that is widely flouted, on overall respect for the law.

All those social costs, very very diffuse and nebulous and subjective and unmeasurable can perhaps be analyzed scientifically, but the conclusions to reach from them, are a choice, not a proof. Science can support this choice or that, and various aspects will probably support each of the many available approaches, to varying degrees.

So is it any wonder we don't have agreement here?

This all touches greatly on my professional life. My employer offers a product which has been proven to REDUCE crash risk in older adults. To get back to the original topic, and what the science is all about -- divided attention is an EXTREMELY heavily-studied phenomenon, a skill that declines with age and many other factors, something which CAN be improved through training, etc. etc. It is also something that can be studied in an fMRI, where we can see what parts of the brain are involved with what sort of activity.

I really don't have time to do that topic justice, because I have a product to get out. But I think this conversation should refocus around divided attention, and cognitive load, and what factors impact the cognitive load and the ability to successfully divide attention in this way.

One of the things the driving research suggests is that it's not the phone, it's the conversation -- and especially conversation with someone you can't see.

A Segway is a different environment than a car. In a car, you are in a box, already isolated from your immediate environment. On a Segway, you generally CAN slow down or stop when cognitive loads make it advisable, while in a car, that's generally bad driving and often a crash risk itself.

I think the Simon Malls thing about cell phones was pretty much summed up by someone (Karl?) as a matter of marking territory. "See, we DO get to make some rules".

And yet, observing pedestrians with cell phones -- I consider them to be a special hazard.

I imaging a glider on a cell might be a bit of a hazard to other gliders. I don't think pedestrians or gliders are particular hazardous to other pedestrians -- and I think gliders are LESS of a hazard, because we are more constrained in our actions. WE DO NOT GLIDE SIDEWAYS! We don't often quickly glide back 3 paces and then turn around. Probably even less often if we're on a cell phone.

I do not have a problem with people using cell phones on Segways. I do so, myself, when the occasion warrants. I also take photographs, sing, dance, drink sodas, wave to small children, pet dogs, people-watch, nature-watch, and look for groceries.

Do I ever have difficulties with splitting attention? Yes - and it never takes more than one second to resolve it, because I can slow quite quickly.

The familiarity with a task has a lot to do with the cognitive load it imposes. The conflicts in attention generally arise in the parts of the brain that process various memory-related information, prioritization, analysis. A physical task, such as gliding, generally will involve these areas very little. I do not have to think about how to put my Segway at such-and-such a location, I just do it. The "thinking" part of the brain is left free to think about programming or explaining macroeconomics or medical advances or relationship complexities or whatever the phone call is about.

Should a beginning Segway glider use a cell phone on his first outing? Bad idea. Once he's comfortable standing still, using it while standing still on a Segway becomes reasonable, except when it's important to stay REALLY still.

Even today, there are times when I just won't deal with the phone, even via bluetooth headset (which I keep forgetting to set up before I leave lately). Sometimes it's just more important to duck those tree branches while watching out for the pavement broken up by the tree roots. That's already divided attention, right there.