headset for cellphone and GPS

On Feb 17, 10:54 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use....RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
> Bob Mann wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:40:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > <jclarke.use....RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Further, statistically it doesn't seem to matter if you're holding
> >> the phone to your ear or using a handsfree in a car.  And anything
> >> that's dangerous for someone driving a car to do is more so for
> >> someone riding a motorcycle.
>
> > I've also seen stats that say the same for talking with a passenger.
>
> You've seen stats, or you've seen somebody express their opinion?
>
> There's a reason that airliners are required to have two people in the
> front seat and it's not just in case one of them gets sick.  A second
> pair of eyes _in_ _the_ _vehicle_ improves the chances of spotting a
> problem in time to avoid it.  A person on the other end of a cell
> phone is a pure distraction.

There's also a reason for that little sign on a bus that says, "DO NOT
TALK TO DRIVER."

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:01:34 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:

>Bob Myers wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:fphkit12r6b@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> Let me ask you a question. Is your last memory of someone you
>>> cared
>>> about "Oh, SH<CRASH>" coming across a cell phone? If it was then
>>> you
>>> wouldn't be quite so high and mighty about them.
>>
>> John, I hate to pry in what likely is a pretty sensitive area,
>> IF the answer to this question is what I think it is - but...is
>> YOUR last memory of someone per the above? If so, I'd
>> submit that your opinions here may also be a little biased.
>> Not that you're wrong, necessarily, but you may not be
>> all that objective. Just a thought.
>
>No, it's not, but considering how my GF drives and the fact that she
>is one of those who really should just have the phone surgically
>attached to her ear, every time she calls me while negotiating traffic
>I worry about that being the outcome of the conversation.
>
>> I don't "yammer" on a cell phone incessantly while driving,
>> and never at all when riding. However, I HAVE used a
>> cell phone in the car, with a hands-free Bluetooth headset,
>> and only for brief periods when it was needed. When that
>> happens, I try to remain very aware of the choice I'm
>> making and ratchet my attentiveness up even more to
>> compensate - and when I'm driving, my head is usually
>> on a swivel anyway. There's risk in any such activity -
>> including the one we're supposedly concerned about in
>> this group - and IF you take that risk on properly, it
>> is something that can be dealt with (again, as in all such
>> activities). I cringe every time I see a clueless cell phone
>> user who is obviously just "yammering" and not paying
>> attention to their driving also - but that doesn't automatically
>> mean that a cell phone is the ultimate evil and that even
>> touching one while driving is a recipe for certain death.
>
>It's not the ultimate evil, and if people would use them minimally and
>responsibly then there wouldn't be enough of a problem to need a
>legislative remedy, however even here, where using a cell phone while
>driving _is_ unlawful we see people cruising down the road yammering
>away and weaving back and forth, or speeding up and slowing down
>without rhyme or reason, often with their eyes on something in the
>passenger seat, occasionally glancing at the road.
>
>If you personally are normally more vigilant than others, and the cell
>phone takes you down to the "average" level of vigilance, that may be
>OK for you but it's difficult to make excepctions in the law for
>individuals unless you want to propose some kind of skills testing to
>allow cell phone use while driving.

There are places for talking on the cell phone and places not to. I-5
north of Weed, rural Nevada, Montana, and other places are good. The
280 -- 101 freeway interchange in San Jose -- not good.

>
>The trouble is that if people use a privilege irresponsibly they lose
>it, and enough people are using cell phones in vehicles irresponsibly
>at this point that they're becoming a social problem.
>
>> If statistics were all there were to questions of this nature,
>> we should all park our bikes, hang up our gear, and take
>> up something nice and safe like knitting. For some reason,
>> I don't think that answer's going to be very popular here.
>
>If the only person a cell-yammerer endangered was himself then I'd
>think the government should stay out of it--I'm of the opinion that
>where it's only his own life at stake a person should be able to
>choose what risks he takes--I'm opposed to helmet laws for that
>reason, for example, even though I always wear one myself. Seat belt
>laws the same. But somebody yammering on a cell phone and not paying
>as much attention to the road as he should is not just endangering
>himself, he's endangering others as well.
>
>Further, I have more of a problem with car drivers and truckers doing
>it than motorcyclists doing it--lose it on the bike and you're liable
>to get dead while the guy in the car or truck who runs over you after
>you go down is going to mostly be out the cost of car repairs. Lose
>it while driving a car and hit a bike and the economic outcome is the
>same, the guy in the car is out car repairs while the guy on the bike
>may be dead. But if he hits another car then everybody involved may
>end up dead.
>
>The trouble is that you're going to play Hell getting a legislature to
>say "motorcyclists may yammer on the phone as they please but people
>driving cars are not allowed to do so", so it it's banned for the one
>it's going to be banned for the other.

The biggest problem that you're going to have with a motorcycle in
particular is one of enforcement. If the rider is using a headset (the
only practical way) with a full-face helmet and a tinted shield, how
are you going to know if he's talking on the phone? Even with an
automobile, you're going to have to get very close to see a bluetooth
or wired headset, and see his lips move, and if there is a passenger,
forget it. It would be impossible to prove that driver wasn't simply
talking to the passenger.

>
>> The bottom line is something that any of us who are on
>> two wheels ought to be very familiar with - personal
>> responsibility. When you choose to pursue an activity
>> that has increased risk to you and those around you, it
>> is up to YOU to weigh that risk vs. the importance of the
>> activity, and to take whatever steps you can to minimize
>> it.
>
>If it's endangering others without their knowledge or consent then
>it's not entirely "up to you" or shouldn't be.
>
>
>--