We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do read
the comments at the end.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
> read the comments at the end.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>
>
Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.

Jill

On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>> read the comments at the end.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>
>>
>>
> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>
> Jill
I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
should be worse than talking to a passenger.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>>> read the comments at the end.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>
>> Jill
> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
> should be worse than talking to a passenger.

I don't understand that either.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 6/21/2014 10:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>>> read the comments at the end.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>
>> Jill
> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>
We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.

Jill

On Saturday, June 21, 2014 7:21:48 AM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 10:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>
> > On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>

> >> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
> >> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>
> > I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
> > should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>
> We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
> on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
> brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.

Right, a passenger knows when to shut up and let you concentrate on
driving. Somebody on the other end of the phone call has no idea what
is happening on the road.

On 6/21/2014 10:33 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 7:21:48 AM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 10:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>
>>>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>>>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>
>>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>>
>> We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
>> on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
>> brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.
>
> Right, a passenger knows when to shut up and let you concentrate on
> driving. Somebody on the other end of the phone call has no idea what
> is happening on the road.
>
Most likely they'd think it's a dropped call, so then they'd start
yelling "Hello? Hello?!" Also a distraction. Then again, I don't
understand why people need to yak on the phone all the time.

Jill

James Silverton wrote:
>
> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> > Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
> > hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.

> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
> should be worse than talking to a passenger.

Imo, it's not worse and we all do it but both should be avoided every
chance we get. Driving is a dangerous thing and it kills so many
people every day. All concentration should be on the driving. People
do unexpected things all the time on the road. You need full
concentration. One second of not paying attention can certainly cost
you your life (and a horrible violent way to go out).

G. ;-o

On 6/21/2014 10:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 10:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:

>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>>
> We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
> on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
> brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.

How many times have you seen the thousand yard stare of someone
on the phone, they barely notice anyone around them.

I liked the part in the article where he said:

-When driving with no distractions, I managed a fairly constant gap but
-while speaking on the hands-free, I yo-yoed back and forth wildly.

Yeah, we see you. Probably the same people who insist it's all
the other people who can't handle talking on the phone and
driving.

nancy

On 6/21/2014 10:53 AM, Gary wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>
>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>
> Imo, it's not worse and we all do it but both should be avoided every
> chance we get.

We don't *all* do it. Even when I had a cell phone I wasn't using it
(hands free or not) when I was driving. Nothing is so important it
can't wait until you've arrived at your destination. If John calls me
and I know he's driving (I can tell) I simply won't talk to him. Call
me later.

> Driving is a dangerous thing and it kills so many
> people every day. All concentration should be on the driving. People
> do unexpected things all the time on the road. You need full
> concentration. One second of not paying attention can certainly cost
> you your life (and a horrible violent way to go out).
>
> G. ;-o
>
Yeppers. It only takes a second.

Jill

wrote:
>
> jmcquown wrote:
> > We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
> > on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
> > brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.

If a car ahead of you just slammed on their brakes or some idiot just
cut in front of you, your passenger won't be able to warn you in time
to react. YOU need to be paying full attention.


>
> Right, a passenger knows when to shut up and let you concentrate on
> driving. Somebody on the other end of the phone call has no idea what
> is happening on the road.

I only drive short distances...15 minutes or less. I don't talk on my
cell phone and I don't answer it in that short time. This is what
voicemail is all about.

G.

On 6/21/2014 11:07 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 10:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 10:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>
>>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>>>
>> We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
>> on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
>> brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.
>
> How many times have you seen the thousand yard stare of someone
> on the phone, they barely notice anyone around them.
>
> I liked the part in the article where he said:
>
> -When driving with no distractions, I managed a fairly constant gap but
> -while speaking on the hands-free, I yo-yoed back and forth wildly.
>
> Yeah, we see you. Probably the same people who insist it's all
> the other people who can't handle talking on the phone and
> driving.
>

I suspect you speak with your hands as well as your mouth. It used to be
maintained that my mother would be dumb if her hands were tied. :-)


--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 6/21/2014 11:26 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 11:07 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 10:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2014 10:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>>>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>>>>
>>> We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
>>> on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
>>> brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.
>>
>> How many times have you seen the thousand yard stare of someone
>> on the phone, they barely notice anyone around them.
>>
>> I liked the part in the article where he said:
>>
>> -When driving with no distractions, I managed a fairly constant gap but
>> -while speaking on the hands-free, I yo-yoed back and forth wildly.
>>
>> Yeah, we see you. Probably the same people who insist it's all
>> the other people who can't handle talking on the phone and
>> driving.
>>
>
> I suspect you speak with your hands as well as your mouth. It used to be
> maintained that my mother would be dumb if her hands were tied. :-)
>

My fil said that about my mil, one of those jokes that really was
true about her. Me, I don't talk with my hands, except on the
computer.

Then, I also don't talk on the phone when I'm driving.

nancyu

On 6/21/2014 11:26 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> I suspect you speak with your hands as well as your mouth. It used to be
> maintained that my mother would be dumb if her hands were tied. :-)

Arrrgh! My neighbor does that. On the few occasions she's been driving
and I was the passenger she's constantly talking, all the while
gesticulating. She doesn't turn to look at me, but her hands aren't on
the wheel. I do NOT like getting in a car with her. At least I know
she doesn't own a cell phone.

Jill

On 21/06/2014 8:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>>> read the comments at the end.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>
>> Jill
> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>
Particularly when they believe that it's important to have eye contact
when speaking to each other. I've seen this countless times when
following a car where the driver turns his/her (mostly her) head to face
the passenger, thereby taking their eyes off the road.
Graham

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> wrote:
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>> > We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
>> > on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
>> > brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.
>
> If a car ahead of you just slammed on their brakes or some idiot just
> cut in front of you, your passenger won't be able to warn you in time
> to react. YOU need to be paying full attention.
>
>
>>
>> Right, a passenger knows when to shut up and let you concentrate on
>> driving. Somebody on the other end of the phone call has no idea what
>> is happening on the road.
>
> I only drive short distances...15 minutes or less. I don't talk on my
> cell phone and I don't answer it in that short time. This is what
> voicemail is all about.

I don't have hand free so I won't answer my mobile phone either.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/21/2014 11:07 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 10:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2014 10:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>>>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>>>>
>>> We've been over this. A passenger is a second set of eyes. The person
>>> on the phone doesn't know the car ahead of you just slammed on their
>>> brakes or that some idiot just cut in front of you.
>>
>> How many times have you seen the thousand yard stare of someone
>> on the phone, they barely notice anyone around them.
>>
>> I liked the part in the article where he said:
>>
>> -When driving with no distractions, I managed a fairly constant gap but
>> -while speaking on the hands-free, I yo-yoed back and forth wildly.
>>
>> Yeah, we see you. Probably the same people who insist it's all
>> the other people who can't handle talking on the phone and
>> driving.
>>
>
> I suspect you speak with your hands as well as your mouth. It used to be
> maintained that my mother would be dumb if her hands were tied. :-)

lol I have been accused of that too)


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/21/2014 11:26 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>> I suspect you speak with your hands as well as your mouth. It used to be
>> maintained that my mother would be dumb if her hands were tied. :-)
>
> Arrrgh! My neighbor does that. On the few occasions she's been driving
> and I was the passenger she's constantly talking, all the while
> gesticulating. She doesn't turn to look at me, but her hands aren't on
> the wheel. I do NOT like getting in a car with her. At least I know she
> doesn't own a cell phone.

Hmm i do that but not in the car)))

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> > Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>> > hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>
>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>
> Imo, it's not worse and we all do it but both should be avoided every
> chance we get. Driving is a dangerous thing and it kills so many
> people every day. All concentration should be on the driving. People
> do unexpected things all the time on the road. You need full
> concentration. One second of not paying attention can certainly cost
> you your life (and a horrible violent way to go out).


I took a tour of a Tesla S recently. Gorgeous car. Complete with built in
Web browser. Elon Musk, you got that one very wrong.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 6/21/2014 12:14 PM, graham wrote:
> On 21/06/2014 8:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>>>> read the comments at the end.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>>
> Particularly when they believe that it's important to have eye contact
> when speaking to each other. I've seen this countless times when
> following a car where the driver turns his/her (mostly her) head to face
> the passenger, thereby taking their eyes off the road.
> Graham

That's another thing I don't do. I cringe when I see television shows
with people in cars and the driver turns his head to talk to the
passenger. I know they aren't *really* driving - it's television. But
good lord, you don't have to look at the person sitting next to you in
order to talk to them. I keep my eyes on the road (and on the traffic
and car mirrors).

I've had passengers ask, "Did you see that?" No, I didn't. I was
watching the road, not looking out the window.

Jill

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "James Silverton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>>>> read the comments at the end.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>
> I don't understand that either.

I do which is why I won't do it.

In article >, graham >
wrote:

> On 21/06/2014 8:13 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> > On 6/21/2014 10:07 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> >> On 6/21/2014 9:46 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
> >>> read the comments at the end.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...roof-texting-w
> >>> heel-MORE-dangerous-drink-driving-hands-free-calls-bad.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
> >> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
> >>
> >> Jill
> > I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
> > should be worse than talking to a passenger.
> >
> Particularly when they believe that it's important to have eye contact
> when speaking to each other. I've seen this countless times when
> following a car where the driver turns his/her (mostly her) head to face
> the passenger, thereby taking their eyes off the road.
> Graham

I was recently a passenger in a car driven by someone who is just like
that. We avoided an accident only because I saw it coming and screamed
out for him to look ahead and stop. That's why it's safer talking to a
passenger rather than on even a hands free phone. A second set of eyes.
I've seen people on the phone with a far away look in their eyes,
staring off in the distance but not seeing anything.

I read somewhere about a test done with pilots in simulators. When the
pilot was busy preparing to land, he would see only what he expected to
see. They would put vehicles on the runway in front of him, but in the
short glances he mode at the runway, he did not see the obstacles. I
would guess that at least some of the people distracted by a phone call
would have the same perception. Most of the time they're lucky and there
is no obstacle to be avoided.

On 6/21/2014 10:18 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>


>>>>
>>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>
> I don't understand that either.

It is the way our brains work. Talking with a passenger, we are able to
watch the road and stop a conversation and the passenger will do so
also. On the phone, we don't have the visual connection and it takes
more brain power. It also varies with the type of conversation,
lighthearted versus serious too.

"Ophelia" > wrote:
> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
> read the comments at the end.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html


I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can turn
disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was looking
around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that extra
second or two I lost.

Greg

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/21/2014 10:18 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
>>>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
>>> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
>>
>> I don't understand that either.
>
> It is the way our brains work. Talking with a passenger, we are able to
> watch the road and stop a conversation and the passenger will do so also.
> On the phone, we don't have the visual connection and it takes more brain
> power. It also varies with the type of conversation, lighthearted versus
> serious too.

Sounds right to me.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"gregz" > wrote in message
...
> "Ophelia" > wrote:
>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>> read the comments at the end.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>
>
> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can turn
> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was looking
> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that extra
> second or two I lost.

Oh dear I hope no one was injured?
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 6/22/2014 7:32 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "gregz" > wrote

>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can turn
>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was looking
>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that extra
>> second or two I lost.
>
> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?

Has anyone seen the Volkswagon texting experiment? They
were showing a trailer of a car driving and suddenly
everyone in the theater got a text. I think you can see
it he

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/money...6/16/10325511/

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/22/2014 7:32 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "gregz" > wrote
>
>>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can turn
>>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was
>>> looking
>>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that extra
>>> second or two I lost.
>>
>> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?
>
> Has anyone seen the Volkswagon texting experiment? They
> were showing a trailer of a car driving and suddenly
> everyone in the theater got a text. I think you can see
> it he
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/videos/money...6/16/10325511/

No I hadn't seen it. I bet that made a few people think!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:37:40 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 6/22/2014 7:32 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gregz" > wrote
>>>
>>>>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can
>>>>> turn
>>>>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was
>>>>> looking
>>>>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that
>>>>> extra
>>>>> second or two I lost.
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?
>>>
>>> Has anyone seen the Volkswagon texting experiment? They
>>> were showing a trailer of a car driving and suddenly
>>> everyone in the theater got a text. I think you can see
>>> it he
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/videos/money...6/16/10325511/
>>
>>No I hadn't seen it. I bet that made a few people think!
>
> Yes, but were the kids watching the ad or were they texting when it
> aired ?

I think that was the point.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> On 6/21/2014 10:18 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >
>
> >>>>
> >>> Naturally there will be someone who still doesn't understand even
> >>> hands-free talking on the phone is a distraction.
> >>>
> >>> Jill
> >> I know it's claimed otherwise but I can't see why hands-free talking
> >> should be worse than talking to a passenger.
> >
> > I don't understand that either.
>
> It is the way our brains work. Talking with a passenger, we are able to
> watch the road and stop a conversation and the passenger will do so
> also.

That's the theory, but it's wrong. I've had passengers who are
absolutely f'ing clueless and babble on and on no matter what the
driving demands are, lean forward blocking the side mirror when you are
backing up, etc. I can much more easily ignore someone on the cell
phone, and they can't lan and block mirrors.

"Ophelia" > wrote:
> "gregz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>>> read the comments at the end.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>
>>
>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can turn
>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was looking
>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that extra
>> second or two I lost.
>
> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?

She, said all was ok. I later heard about some kind of injury report. A
child was in rear car seat. Her cadilac look pretty good, but the front of
my Subaru was messed up.

I have been victim of getting my rear slammed a couple times. Perhaps I was
an instigator with my driving habits of stopping fast at stop signs and red
lights.

Greg

On 6/22/2014 9:49 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:37:40 +0100, "Ophelia"

>> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>>> Has anyone seen the Volkswagon texting experiment? They
>>> were showing a trailer of a car driving and suddenly
>>> everyone in the theater got a text. I think you can see
>>> it he
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/videos/money...6/16/10325511/
>>
>> No I hadn't seen it. I bet that made a few people think!
>
> Yes, but were the kids watching the ad or were they texting when it
> aired ?

That was the whole idea, they were watching then they got a
text and looked at their phone and in that instant the car
crashed.

nancy

"gregz" > wrote in message
...
> "Ophelia" > wrote:
>> "gregz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ophelia" > wrote:
>>>> We discussed this recently and I was interested to see this report. Do
>>>> read the comments at the end.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...calls-bad.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can turn
>>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was
>>> looking
>>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that extra
>>> second or two I lost.
>>
>> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?
>
> She, said all was ok. I later heard about some kind of injury report. A
> child was in rear car seat. Her cadilac look pretty good, but the front of
> my Subaru was messed up.
>
> I have been victim of getting my rear slammed a couple times. Perhaps I
> was
> an instigator with my driving habits of stopping fast at stop signs and
> red
> lights.

Could be We have that amber light we were discussing earlier which comes
in before the red which shows it is about to come on.
We seem to have a rule here though that the driver behind is always to
blame for not giving the car in front enough space to stop.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:34:37 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
> "gregz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Ophelia" > wrote:
> >> "gregz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can turn
> >>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was
> >>> looking
> >>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that extra
> >>> second or two I lost.
> >>
> >> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?
> >
> > She, said all was ok. I later heard about some kind of injury report. A
> > child was in rear car seat. Her cadilac look pretty good, but the front of
> > my Subaru was messed up.
> >
> > I have been victim of getting my rear slammed a couple times. Perhaps I
> > was
> > an instigator with my driving habits of stopping fast at stop signs and
> > red lights.
>
> Could be We have that amber light we were discussing earlier which comes
> in before the red which shows it is about to come on.

We have the yellow caution light too. Not sure why anyone thinks it's
a novel idea... the problem with our caution lights is that it's so
quick. Some of them are no longer than one or two seconds. With City
driving, you won't get a chance to make a turn until the oncoming
traffic's light is red and you won't be able to make the turn unless
you're in the middle of the intersection waiting for a break in
traffic (that's how you know it's either an inexperienced driver or
someone from out of town). Allowing autos to turn is one of the
reasons why caution lights are so quick and there's a delay before the
cross traffic gets the green in urban areas.

> We seem to have a rule here though that the driver behind is always to
> blame for not giving the car in front enough space to stop.

Tailgating is frowned upon here too and even if you're in the right,
you're still technically wrong when you rear-end someone.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:34:37 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "gregz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Ophelia" > wrote:
>> >> "gregz" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can
>> >>> turn
>> >>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was
>> >>> looking
>> >>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that
>> >>> extra
>> >>> second or two I lost.
>> >>
>> >> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?
>> >
>> > She, said all was ok. I later heard about some kind of injury report. A
>> > child was in rear car seat. Her cadilac look pretty good, but the front
>> > of
>> > my Subaru was messed up.
>> >
>> > I have been victim of getting my rear slammed a couple times. Perhaps I
>> > was
>> > an instigator with my driving habits of stopping fast at stop signs and
>> > red lights.
>>
>> Could be We have that amber light we were discussing earlier which
>> comes
>> in before the red which shows it is about to come on.
>
> We have the yellow caution light too. Not sure why anyone thinks it's
> a novel idea... the problem with our caution lights is that it's so
> quick. Some of them are no longer than one or two seconds. With City
> driving, you won't get a chance to make a turn until the oncoming
> traffic's light is red and you won't be able to make the turn unless
> you're in the middle of the intersection waiting for a break in
> traffic (that's how you know it's either an inexperienced driver or
> someone from out of town). Allowing autos to turn is one of the
> reasons why caution lights are so quick and there's a delay before the
> cross traffic gets the green in urban areas.
>
>> We seem to have a rule here though that the driver behind is always to
>> blame for not giving the car in front enough space to stop.
>
> Tailgating is frowned upon here too and even if you're in the right,
> you're still technically wrong when you rear-end someone.
>
I once rear ended someone while starting up from a traffic light. It was
dark out and all of a sudden, a blind man just came out of nowhere and
appeared in the street in front of the car in front of me. The man was
dressed all in black and the driver in front of me said that he nearly hit
him but then he saw the white cane and slammed his brakes on. I only went
forward a few feet when I hit him. It all happened so suddenly. I had a
passenger and he didn't see the blind man either. And then the blind man
just sort of disappeared.

This was back in the early 80's and we didn't have the system like we do
today where the light will give off a chirping sound so blind people know
when it is safe to cross.

The bad thing was, that this happened in front of the store where I worked.
I was off that night and going to look for an apartment in the area.

When I got to work the next day, people were telling me of the accident.
And I was like... Yeah. Tell me about it! They didn't know that I had
been involved in it. They just knew that it happened.

On 2014-06-23 6:29 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>
> That was the whole idea, they were watching then they got a
> text and looked at their phone and in that instant the car
> crashed.
>
>


There was an real life (death) incident like that near here recently. It
happened in front of a friend's place. The guy had just been at a 4 way
stop intersection about 250 yards down the road and managed to veer
across the road and crashed head on into a water tank truck. Apparently
he had been texting at the time.

On 6/23/2014 9:51 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-06-23 6:29 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>
>> That was the whole idea, they were watching then they got a
>> text and looked at their phone and in that instant the car
>> crashed.
>>
> There was an real life (death) incident like that near here recently. It
> happened in front of a friend's place. The guy had just been at a 4 way
> stop intersection about 250 yards down the road and managed to veer
> across the road and crashed head on into a water tank truck. Apparently
> he had been texting at the time.

His poor family. I wonder when I read about fatal accidents
where someone suddenly drove into oncoming traffic. They
don't say, but I think something took their eyes off the
road.

I'm pretty sure it's SOP to check to see if the driver was
on the phone/texting at the time of a fatal crash.

nancy

On Monday, June 23, 2014 6:51:19 AM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> There was an real life (death) incident like that near here recently. It
> happened in front of a friend's place. The guy had just been at a 4 way
> stop intersection about 250 yards down the road and managed to veer
> across the road and crashed head on into a water tank truck. Apparently
> he had been texting at the time.

I heard a late-morning boom a while back. Young person in a brand new
pickup had drifted across the semi-arterial road near our house.
Total casualties were three parked cars, four garbage/recycling cans, and
a severely debarked tree, along with the pickup.

Ya gotta keep your hands on the wheel, and your eyes pointed out the
window.

On 6/23/2014 6:29 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 6/22/2014 9:49 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:37:40 +0100, "Ophelia"
>
>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>>> Has anyone seen the Volkswagon texting experiment? They
>>>> were showing a trailer of a car driving and suddenly
>>>> everyone in the theater got a text. I think you can see
>>>> it he
>>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/videos/money...6/16/10325511/
>>>
>>> No I hadn't seen it. I bet that made a few people think!
>>
>> Yes, but were the kids watching the ad or were they texting when it
>> aired ?
>
> That was the whole idea, they were watching then they got a
> text and looked at their phone and in that instant the car
> crashed.
>
> nancy
>
I think it was a brilliant way to insert a don't text & drive message.
I do still wonder if they got the point. I really cannot fathom what is
so friggin important that you have to read a text (or answer the phone)
when you're driving.

Jill

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:34:37 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "gregz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Ophelia" > wrote:
>> >> "gregz" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> I recently rammed a car in front of me. Proof, any distraction can
>> >>> turn
>> >>> disaster when a car suddenly stops in front if you. I think I was
>> >>> looking
>> >>> around at the stores along the road in a heavy area. I needed that
>> >>> extra
>> >>> second or two I lost.
>> >>
>> >> Oh dear I hope no one was injured?
>> >
>> > She, said all was ok. I later heard about some kind of injury report. A
>> > child was in rear car seat. Her cadilac look pretty good, but the front
>> > of
>> > my Subaru was messed up.
>> >
>> > I have been victim of getting my rear slammed a couple times. Perhaps I
>> > was
>> > an instigator with my driving habits of stopping fast at stop signs and
>> > red lights.
>>
>> Could be We have that amber light we were discussing earlier which
>> comes
>> in before the red which shows it is about to come on.
>
> We have the yellow caution light too. Not sure why anyone thinks it's
> a novel idea... the problem with our caution lights is that it's so
> quick. Some of them are no longer than one or two seconds. With City
> driving, you won't get a chance to make a turn until the oncoming
> traffic's light is red and you won't be able to make the turn unless
> you're in the middle of the intersection waiting for a break in
> traffic (that's how you know it's either an inexperienced driver or
> someone from out of town). Allowing autos to turn is one of the
> reasons why caution lights are so quick and there's a delay before the
> cross traffic gets the green in urban areas.
>
>> We seem to have a rule here though that the driver behind is always to
>> blame for not giving the car in front enough space to stop.
>
> Tailgating is frowned upon here too and even if you're in the right,
> you're still technically wrong when you rear-end someone.

Yes!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/