FINALLY...doing something about #$@! cell phones

[RandFan]

It was your question.

Yes, very good art. I was questioning someone's claim.

Huh?

My point exactly. I don't have a clue what you were on about with that whole hat thing. At best it was a non sequitur. Certainly a Paris Hilton moment. Not typical of you.

 

[RandFan]

Sounds more anecdotal than scientific to me. Although I will admit that GM is a leader in automotive safety research. (They built the first crash test dummies.) I would have to weigh this with the fact that a banning a hands free cell devices could be a disaster to the marketing of the On-Star feature.

Why do you say it sounds anecdotal? Their database is much larger than the one you cite. Though I don't know what if any methodology or protocols they followed (I'm not a researcher though I do design databases for clinical research I confess ignorance).

 

[RandFan]

Did you not notice that I also linked the same study?

I'm sorry, I clicked on it but I think it timed out and I thought it was a different site. I need to close some window.

I give you points for that. Thank you.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, very good art. I was questioning someone's claim.

What claim was that?

My point exactly. I don't have a clue what you were on about with that whole hat thing. At best it was a non sequitur. Certainly a Paris Hilton moment. Not typical of you.

There was another thread in which we were discussing an employer whose dress code conflicted with a Muslim employee's headscarf. I said that employers have the right to run their businesses as they choose. Tony said that a logical conclusion of this position was that business owners would be allowed to rape people. I said that was absurd, and it was clear what I meant. Tony replied that he wasn't a mindreader.

So when Tony said, in this thread, that people aren't allowed to wear hats, rather than that they aren't allowed to wear hats in school, I said that according to his own logic, I shouldn't look at what he obviously meant, because I'm not a mindreader.

 

[jimlintott]

Why do you say it sounds anecdotal? Their database is much larger than the one you cite. Though I don't know what if any methodology or protocols they followed (I'm not a researcher though I do design databases for clinical research I confess ignorance).

I'm wary because I know what On-Star is designed to do. They say they have 8.1 million calls in their database but don't have a breakdown that could eliminate some of the calls. For example you can call On-Star from a land line and have them unlock your doors. Is such a call included? The only calls that would be of any use to this safety issue are the ones from moving vehicles. A breakdown may give a good indication of this. (Out of 8.1 million a few had to be moving.) For all I know many could be from vehicles in the showroom asking if this thing is on. Do they have some solid evidence or are they hiding something? They have a vested interest in promoting hands free devices I would think if they had solid evidence they would be trumpeting it all over.

Traffic safety is very interesting to me and I have some strong ideas about it. Many I'm sure you would agree with but when it comes to this cell phone, hands free or not, the evidence I see doesn't bode well for people who want to phone and drive.

Traffic accidents have become one of the leading causes of death world wide. I would rather a knee jerk reaction on the side of safety and fix it later than kill thousands and then say oops.

I apologise for calling you rude. I'm not really like that. You pushed my buttons a little.

 

[RandFan]

What claim was that?

Art, I don't know what to say, you really don't know? After all of these posts you are at a loss as to what claim is being asserted? Ok, I'll state it again, the claim is that using hands free phones are significantly more dangerous than conversing with a passenger.

There was another thread in which we were discussing an employer whose dress code conflicted with a Muslim employee's headscarf. I said that employers have the right to run their businesses as they choose. Tony said that a logical conclusion of this position was that business owners would be allowed to rape people. I said that was absurd, and it was clear what I meant. Tony replied that he wasn't a mindreader.

So when Tony said, in this thread, that people aren't allowed to wear hats, rather than that they aren't allowed to wear hats in school, I said that according to his own logic, I shouldn't look at what he obviously meant, because I'm not a mindreader.

And this is relevant to the discussion because?

 

[RandFan]

I'm wary because I know what On-Star is designed to do. They say they have 8.1 million calls in their database but don't have a breakdown that could eliminate some of the calls. For example you can call On-Star from a land line and have them unlock your doors. Is such a call included? The only calls that would be of any use to this safety issue are the ones from moving vehicles. A breakdown may give a good indication of this. (Out of 8.1 million a few had to be moving.) For all I know many could be from vehicles in the showroom asking if this thing is on. Do they have some solid evidence or are they hiding something? They have a vested interest in promoting hands free devices I would think if they had solid evidence they would be trumpeting it all over.

Traffic safety is very interesting to me and I have some strong ideas about it. Many I'm sure you would agree with but when it comes to this cell phone, hands free or not, the evidence I see doesn't bode well for people who want to phone and drive.

Traffic accidents have become one of the leading causes of death world wide. I would rather a knee jerk reaction on the side of safety and fix it later than kill thousands and then say oops.

I apologise for calling you rude. I'm not really like that. You pushed my buttons a little.

I do that, push buttons. Sometimes unintentionally and I have to apologize from time to time. Belive me, it was a weekly thing for awhile but I'm getting much better if you can believe that.

As I said earlier the cell phone is very important to my work. When I got my headset I immediately noticed an improvement however I must concede my bias.

That being said, I don't think it appropriate to punish people because it might save lives. We could take a lot of measures that might save lives that would come at a cost. There are always trade offs. Let's make an informed decision. If the objective evidence says banning all cell phones will make a significant impact on accidents then I'm there. You don't have to sell me on that. I just want good evidence. You and I will have to disagree about whether erring on the side of safety is the appropriate action. Reasonable people can disagree and I think you are a reasonable person. We just had a difficult time getting to this point. I will accept that I bear some responsibility for that, perhaps more than I want to admit.

Thanks,

RandFan

P.S. Golf isn't a sport.

I live for conflict.

 

[Tony]

So when Tony said, in this thread, that people aren't allowed to wear hats, rather than that they aren't allowed to wear hats in school, I said that according to his own logic, I shouldn't look at what he obviously meant, because I'm not a mindreader.

C'mon Art. It's clear what I was talking about from the context (slingblade was talking about rules governing hats in school) in which that comment was made.

Here is the comment:

In the school district which I went to school. No one could wear hats at anytime.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Art, I don't know what to say, you really don't know? After all of these posts you are at a loss as to what claim is being asserted? Ok, I'll state it again, the claim is that using hands free phones are significantly more dangerous than conversing with a passenger.

Did someone claim that before youir question? I sure didn't.

And this is relevant to the discussion because?

Just pointing out his hypocrisy.

That being said, I don't think it appropriate to punish people because it might save lives.

It's not a punishment.

C'mon Art. It's clear what I was talking about from the context (slingblade was talking about rules governing hats in school) in which that comment was made.

And it's clear what I was saying. You're a hypocrite.

 

[RandFan]

Did someone claim that before youir question? I sure didn't.

Again, I'm at a loss. Yes, it is the point of discussion. It has been for some time. Do you even know what we are talking about here? Because I'm not sure you do. This isn't a complicated discussion.

Let me catch you up to date.

1.) It has been suggested, on a number of occasions, that cell phones, including hands free cell phones should be banned.

2.) I have asked if hands free cell phones are more dangerous than conversing with passengers.

3.) It has been alleged that they are.

4.) I'm asking for evidence to demonstrate that.

5.) I'm not making a claim. I'm skeptical of the claim (see #3)

Got it now?

And it's clear what I was saying. You're a hypocrite.

That you say it is clear doesn't make it clear. And I honestly don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about. I honestly wonder if anyone reading this understands what the hell you are talking about.

Ok, I'll bite, why am I a hypocrite? And could you please dispense with the soliloquy about hats and your disdain for Tony? What the hell that has to do with anything is just beyond me.

I can't wait for this one.

 

[RandFan]

It's not a punishment.

Semantic. Do we really need THIS argument.

It comes at a cost. It is not simply a convenience to everyone or simply a luxury. It would be to punish me for something that I have not done (see jiminlott's and other's posts above). It would reduce my ability to make money. I think it fair that if I'm going to be asked to reduce my income that it could be shown that such is necessary. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[RandFan]

Ok, let's back up and see if we can figure this out.

I can't begin to understand what the hell this has to do with anything. The lowest common denominator is someone who can't drive at all so I guess none of us should drive. Could you make a logically valid argument please?

I think that it's clear what he means.

I'm sorry art but I disagree that this is clear. Define for me please what lowest common denominator is? Give me an example?

Even if the risks of two things are the same, that doesn't mean they have to be both or neither banned. If something is more difficult to ban, or banning it would cause more hardship, that might make a difference.

Banning cell phones will cause a hardship. It will cost money.

Why would banning conversations cause a hardship?

 

[Art Vandelay]

1.) It has been suggested, on a number of occasions, that cell phones, including hands free cell phones should be banned.

2.) I have asked if hands free cell phones are more dangerous than conversing with passengers.

3.) It has been alleged that they are.

4.) I'm asking for evidence to demonstrate that.

5.) I'm not making a claim. I'm skeptical of the claim (see #3)

Got it now?

I don't fully understand 2.). If you were so curious, why did you not just google it? You'd get your answer much more quickly. You seem to think that by answering your original question, that somehow creates some obligation to answer your follow-up questions. The whole "You're making the claim, so you have the burden of proof" thing doesn't really work so well when you're the one that soliticed the claim.

That you say it is clear doesn't make it clear.

You have to be truly out there to go from "people have the right to decide how to run their businesses" to "people have the right to rape".

Ok, I'll bite, why am I a hypocrite?

A note about my posts- and apparently this isn't as obvious as I thought it was, since other people seem to be confused about it- barring the occasional screw-ups, the word "you" refers to the last person to have their name precede a quote box. Sometimes, I have two (or more) different you's in the same post.

And could you please dispense with the soliloquy about hats and your disdain for Tony? What the hell that has to do with anything is just beyond me.

I'm just answering your questions. Why do you keep asking about it, if you don't want me to talk about it?

Semantic. Do we really need THIS argument.

No, it's a very important distinction.

It is not simply a convenience to everyone or simply a luxury.

It's rare that it's absolutley necessary. If it's an emergency, you can pull over. And the more important the call is, the less you should be driving while making it.

It would be to punishment me for something that I have not done (see jiminlott's and other's posts above).

No, it would not be punishment. If this is just "semantics", why do you insist on using an incorrect term?

I'm sorry art but I disagree that this is clear. Define for me please what lowest common denominator is? Give me an example?

You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is "What did he mean by 'lowest common denominator'?" And the answer to that question is that he was saying that safety rules should be designed to be applied broadly, rather than having to have separate standards in each situation.

Banning cell phones will cause a hardship. It will cost money.

Did you not read what I wrote?
"or banning it would cause MORE hardship"

 

[RandFan]

I don't fully understand 2.). If you were so curious, why did you not just google it? You'd get your answer much more quickly.

? I did google it and I got conflicting information.

How many times must this be explained to you Art? This is a skeptics forum. Claims are to be supported by those making the claim.

You have to be truly out there to go from "people have the right to decide how to run their businesses" to "people have the right to rape".

Huh? Is this a strawman? Who said anything about rape? Why is your sentence in quotes?

I'm just answering your questions. Why do you keep asking about it, if you don't want me to talk about it?

I just want to understand.

No, it's a very important distinction.

No, not at all. It is a distinction with no difference. Asserting that it is an important distinction doesn't make it so.

It's rare that it's absolutley necessary. If it's an emergency, you can pull over. And the more important the call is, the less you should be driving while making it.

I never said that it was absolutely necessary. Please don't make strawmen. I said that it would be a hardship for me. My phone is very important. I travel 60,000 miles a year and I'm on a very tight schedule. Pulling over to talk would require a significant reduction in the amount of work that I do. I'm barely keeping my head above water as it is. I've lost almost all of my programming work and I don't have any other options that I know of.

It would really hurt me.

No, it would not be punishment. If this is just "semantics", why do you insist on using an incorrect term?

It is not an incorrect term. You are simply playing semantics. You want "punish" to be defined in your own narrow way and then play gotcha because I used a word the way you don't like but that is just semantics. The term is used the way I used it all of the time.

You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is "What did he mean by 'lowest common denominator'?" And the answer to that question is that he was saying that safety rules should be designed to be applied broadly, rather than having to have separate standards in each situation.

You still must decide what is the lowest common denominator. I'll concede that the term has meaning for the way he used it but I think it fails without defining that term. Which is why I asked what is the lowest common denominator.

Did you not read what I wrote?
"or banning it would cause MORE hardship"

I think that is the point that I'm trying to make. Hardship is in the eye of the beholder. Which is why I asked the question in the first place and why we are right back to square one.

Assuming that both were as dangerous would you ban either and why? That's a reasonable question. I'm not trying trying to force anyone into a decision. Where you fail to understand me is to assume that I'm trying to prove something. I'm not. I'm trying to understand and I'm trying to get others not to knee-jerk ban cell phones.

I have said over and over and over that I am willing to accept a ban on cell phones even hands free cell phones depending on the evidence. I simply want to know if others will be consistent.

If the analogy with conversations with passengers is wrong then explain why. Don't simply attack me. I started all of this very reasonable asking reasonable questions and I could not get answers. After a couple pages I think I finally got through and Jim and I understand each other.

Now I've got you.

 

[Tony]

Did someone claim that before youir question? I sure didn't.

Just pointing out his hypocrisy.

It's not a punishment.

And it's clear what I was saying. You're a hypocrite.

You've lost it dude.

 

[Art Vandelay]

? I did google it and I got conflicting information.

You got studies that claimed that there was no difference?

How many times must this be explained to you Art? This is a skeptics forum. Claims are to be supported by those making the claim.

The whole "You're making the claim, so you have the burden of proof" thing doesn't really work so well when you're the one that soliticed the claim.

Huh? Is this a strawman? Who said anything about rape? Why is your sentence in quotes?

Tony said that a logical conclusion of this position was that business owners would be allowed to rape people.

No, not at all. It is a distinction with no difference.

It's a very important difference.

Asserting that it is an important distinction doesn't make it so.

And conersely.

I never said that it was absolutely necessary. Please don't make strawmen.

I didn't say you did.

It is not an incorrect term. You are simply playing semantics. You want "punish" to be defined in your own narrow way and then play gotcha because I used a word the way you don't like but that is just semantics. The term is used the way I used it all of the time.

Just because people use it that way doesn't mean that it means that. I don't appreciate you telling me what my intentions are. I just want "punish" to be used correctly. Your use of the word obscures the issue.

If the analogy with conversations with passengers is wrong then explain why. Don't simply attack me.

I think that there is a difference between disagreeing and attacking.

 

[RandFan]

I think that there is a difference between disagreeing and attacking.

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree.

RandFan