Re: New review on Engadget
 

The ability to NOT answer the phone but reject it is also much better with hardware keys. That is what I used to do until I got my Pioneer DEH-P9800BT.

Now I do talk on the phone and drive, using the hands free (stereo). If I have passengers, I also talk to them while driving. That is more of a distraction. Not only sound, but also movement and smell.

As far as I am the judge of every truth in the universe, there is NO more danger between talking to someone who is in the car and not in the car. There is however a difference between having a regular conversation and trying to solve a customers problems which requires concentration.

I don't see a law against bringing a client on a car ride.

Apart from the car thing, much more common scenario really, is that I ALWAYS answer the phone without looking at where I put my fingers. I have this sense called "touch" (without the letter "i") which I can use to "feel" the device and answer without thinking, in any light, and without removing my concentration from whatever I am doing, which usually involves glaring at some PC screen.

I believe that the lack of hardware accept/reject buttons make ANY phone less intuitive, and more intrusive.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

well those buttons are there for a reason, this conversation was with two buttons: call & end call. not about the fact that pro cams have functions consumer versions doesn't and those have to be controlled via own buttons if you want to have some sense usability in mind....

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Back on topic I would say that my first impression of the Engadget review was that it must have been exceptionally good to make they admit it was better than their iHoly at anything. I could hardly believe my eyes.

That video session, however... :roll: I can seriously not take that guy seriously ever again. Not that I know I ever did.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Few reasons:

Hardware buttons are faster and more reliable to operate on.
You don't have to check what context the screen/apps is in, they're always there.
The tactile feedback and feel-able shapes are easier to find and interact with. Sometimes when you're not looking or giving 100% attention to the device.

Whether you're tinkering with your gadget while driving 100mph in a schoolzone or you're a single mother forced to deal with two kids at the same time while working through your phone, I don't care about the morality and PC-ness of your usecases :D

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Yeah, the point is that there ARE use cases, and lots of them.

Anyway, there are hardware buttons here, I believe some of them should and will be configurable via (third party) software.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

1) You obviously didn't read my post immediately above your first one, because I too said that I like to be able to answer a phone by touch with the call and end buttons (although not for driving purposes). So maybe read, before you get all snarky.

2) Yeah, people like to think they can judge their own driving ability, when talking on the phone (just as drunk drivers always think they're okay to drive), but it's wrong. Studies show that pretty much nobody multitasks well. It's a cultural myth we've developed. When people multitask, they perform much worse at both tasks. In fact, people who multitask a lot, actually become more distractable in general and perform worse at multitasking when they have to, as compared to people who don't multitask a lot. And it may even be the case that this effect is not reversable, but rather permanently alters your abilities (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25...ful/index.html).

But talking on the phone (headset or no) is in a special category by itself. Again, studies show that people are much more distracted on the phone, than when talking to people in the car. In a phone conversation, people's thoughts are absorbed in an activity that's going on elsewhere. It's called cognitive disruption. When the person you're talking to is in the car with you, they can see what's going on and if they need to stop talking, because something's happened on the road or you're distracted. But a person on the phone can't see this and keeps talking. The driver's response tends to be to attempt to keep carrying on the conversation themselves, even if they're driving into a brick wall or running down pedestrians.

Here's a study that actually found, people talking on cell phones (even with a handset) drove worse than drunk drivers. The cell phone talkers in the simulation based study crashed and the drunk drivers didn't: http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1.

It's true, as you say, there are no laws against talking with people who are actually in the car with you. That's because it's not as ridiculously dangerous as talking on the phone, which obviously does have laws against it in many places.

The bottom line is that people who think they're driving well, when talking on the phone, are fooling themselves. And it's selfish, because you're endangering the lives of people around you.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Yeah, I was talking about the call and end buttons. You only quoted half of my post. The point about the convenience of actual buttons on professional video cameras was just to illustrate my point about how the call and end buttons are useful. It was an analogy. You took one paragraph of what I said, interpreted it completely literally, and quoted it out of context.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

engadget guys are just bitter cos nokia isnt "cuddling the usa market"...

what they dont comprehend, and most north americans dont, is that there are OTHER COUNTRIES ON EARTH...

so if by "cuddling with america" means losing the 1st position as phone maker in the world... let them buy the walkie talkies from "mororola" and the rest of the world will be fine... serisously!

[edit] typo [/edit]

Re: New review on Engadget
 

I did. However, I did not reply to it. I replied to the one that was directed at me, and then I talked about why I judge buttons to be better than no buttons.

I do not actually know the word snarky.

You obviously do not know my woman.

A recent study said that Information Technology people makes the worst drivers. I have no illusion of driving well.

Answering or rejecting a call without hardware accessories is in itself quite dangerous. People do drive off the road because they have no handsfree.

If someone call me and I need to do something about it, I feel much safer having a steering wheel remote with accept button, than having to 1) grope for my phone and find the reject button or 2) trying to ignore the sound of the phone.

So, not having the hardware accessories to minimize the danger is in my misguided opinion more dangerous than being able to tell milady i'll call her back as soon as I get to the store.

Let me assure you, I am a whole lot safer in traffic since I got the bluetooth handsfree. Before that, I had to grope in my pants to turn the bastard noise off.

I believe that if you are to frown at handsfree kits in cars, you have to frown at car radios. It is the exact same thing. If you can't phase out what your mum says when there's a moose running over the road, then you can't phase out the news either. The news are a lot more interesting, too.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Well, given that you were quoting my post, it was really hard to tell that you weren't responding to me.

You may feel safer with hardware accessories for answering the phone will driving, but again, the studies show, some of which I cite in my post above, that you actually are not driving any better. People are very good at deluding themselves into thinking that they're driving safely when they're doing these things, that's also been examined in studies on the topic. People just don't want to admit that it's dangerous, because they want to do it and they don't want to have to care about how they're endangering others. Like I said, that's selfish.

And obviously you could just let the phone ring and answer itself. That would be the easiest thing to do. So I don't see how that's relevant at all.

Lastly, yes, people always go for the "car radio" argument. It's actually not the same thing. You're engaging in a slipperly slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. Not all distractions are equal. Some are actually much more dangerous than others. And, again, study after study has shown that talking on the cell phone while driving is extremely dangerous and using a handsfree headset does not reduce the danger. Part of the problem is the talking itself, people are much less distracted when listening than when talking (again demonstrated in university studies). Add to that the fact that the person you're talking to is not in the car with you and can't tell when you need to focus on something else and you have a perfect disaster in the making. In fact, the people who usually make the "car radio" argument are the cell phone manufacturers themselves and truck drivers, people whose livelihoods are effected by cell phone laws and will say anything to try to discount them.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

I dont still understand the analogy. those same buttons could be replaced with touch screen having the buttons and still the functionality is all the same.

positioning is one issue but with mobile & touchscreen the osk buttons can be placed with great accuracy to same places where hardkeys could be in other phones...

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Actually, there was a study that showed that phone has more risk. The difference was based on the fact that other person is inside the car and is responding to driving conditions. For example, a second person inside the car will stop talking when you suddenly have to stop or when you're speeding and she feels uncomfortable or when you're taking risky turns. In fact, the other person may even assist you in case of an emergency (e.g. a pedestrian) by mentioning the problem herself or yelling attention.

EDIT: Just saw that cb474 already mentioned this. Sorry for the dup.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

I meant the analogy along the lines of all the reasons that I have for finding the call and end buttons useful, which I gave in the first paragraph of my post that you were responding to. And I acknowledge in the very first sentence of that post that, as you point out, the functionality of any button could be reproduced on a touchscreen.

For one thing, the buttons are like a special shortcut that's always there, regardless of what screen you're in on the phone. It's a quick way to initiate and end calls, even if you've got some other application up on the screen. Equivalent call and end buttons cannot be put in the same place on the screen, as you say, if you're also running the web browser at the same time. The buttons can also offer quick access to a recently called list and other phone related functions. With the N900, if you're not on the right desktop space with the right shortcuts, that will require more steps.

Secondly, there's the question of touch. You can locate the button quickly by feel, for example to answer a call quickly. A button on a touch screen is never that accurate, I think, no matter how much you get used to a device.

So it's just a convenience that acknowledges that the phone functionality is one of the most basic functions of such a device and you might want to always have quick access. On a video camera, there are also things (white balance, aperature settings, shutter speed, pre-programmed color profiles, zoom), that you might want to get to quickly. Could these all be buttons on a screen? Sure. But most professional videographers find it more effective to have dedicated buttons for the most basic, essential elements of what they're doing. It means that there is always only one step to get to that function, not matter what's happening on a screen.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

You get no tactile feedback from on-screen buttons. Operating hardware buttons is possible when not looking at the device and concentrating on something else. You can't do that with touchscreen buttons.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Well, I can see why you thought I thought you did not want buttons... But... Wanna cookie?

Okay, first let me point out that the next few things I am writing is about the first moment when someone calls you, not about having a conversation on the phone.

This is not a feeling, but a fact. If you have the phone in the pocket and someone calls you, you are instantly a threat in traffic. The very minute you notice it, you are distracted. And then there's a SPIKE in inability to concentrate on the traffic. How fast and easy you get over that spike is important.

Ignoring a phone that is ringing is VERY distracting. It's like reading a book when the alarm clock goes off, you just can't ignore it. And it may go on for minutes, and if your people are anything like my people, they will let it ring out, and then just redial.

The alternative is rejecting the call. Trying to get a phone out of a pocket is not only distracting, but it will impede your ability to steer straight. One hand will be removed from the steering wheel. The upper body will be twisted in the direction of the pocket, physically altering the course of the car. This will typically cause a s manouver. If the phone is in a pants pocket, it will at the same time cause you to change position and pressure on the pedals. This is the physical aspect, which comes on top of the distraction as you try to solve the problem of getting the phone out of the pocket. Then, depending on hardware or software buttons, you need to find the reject button.

This is clearly more dangerous than pressing a button on a steering wheel or car stereo. There's no subjectivity in it.

Now, if you choose to reject it, you have minimized the danger.

This was as I said, just concerning the spike in danger that an ringing phone represents. Having the phone turned off would be even less dangerous, of course.

Again, the passenger. With a passenger, you do the talking.

The roundabout is my prime example of where handsfree is a lifesaver. If someone calls me when I am on the way into the roundabout, I can reject the call with my thumb instantly. Distraction peaked then gone. Or I can press accept, and simply not say "hello" until I am on the other side. Before I had the handsfree, I would be seriously stressed, borderline angry at whoever had called me, by the time I got out of the roundabout, got my perspective back, could check the traffic around me and then felt confident enough to try to find that reject button, usually without removing the phone from the pocket.

I can only imagine how I'd be able to do that with a touchscreen.

I have never personally experienced a problem to pause a conversation while dealing with traffic, i.e. by saying "hang on", but then I must admit, I live somewhere driving isn't particularly challenging. Not that curvy roads, not that heavy traffic. I can easily think of many situations where ANY distraction would be bad, I just haven't experienced any of them.

Of course, I will grant that rejecting all incoming calls is safer than having them. I guess that your initial statement was that, people should not talk in the phone at all. That would be safer. (The same goes for passenger conversations, radios, singing. Chewing bubble gum.)

On the other hand, I will press that the act of fishing up a phone from your pocket is a lot more dangerous than pressing a button on your car stereo. It is a high spike in danger, whereas a conversation is a lower value danger over a longer period of time.

I would also like to point out that some of the earlier studies of handsfree conversations were based on wired handsfree kits. Those kits would only make the spike higher, as it's easier to answer a phone with a hardware button, than to get that earbud thing into your ear.

Basically I guess I'll recommend a handsfree kit regardless if you choose to accept or reject the call. Rejecting the call IS safer that way.

So, long post short:
- yes, talking on the phone is more distracting than not talking on the phone.
- still, having a handsfree kit is safer than not having one.
- hardware buttons are less distractive than software buttons.
- this all is in an engadget thread. i have no excuse.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

It just seems like you're coming up with excuses to evade the point that talking on the phone is dangerous. I'm not making an argument about rejecting calls. All I have argued is that talking on the phone is far more dangerous than other more nominal distractions, like tuning the radio, etc. Plenty of studies support this. I've already cited some of them in posts above. Your repeated assertions to the contrary do not refute these studies.

That said, if you find it so extremely angrifyingly distracting to listen to the phone ring, then you should turn the phone off before you get in the car. The (safe) solution is obvious. I really don't find a ringing cell phone that distracting. I'd be surprised if anyone else does. I already referred to a study that showed that talking, not listening, is the main thing that distracts people in phone calls. So, I will not argue that rejecting a call is more dangerous than tuning the radio, because it's beside the point. This is about the danger of having phone conversations. If you have a handsfree headset purely for the purpose of rejecting a call, I think that's fine. Although, again, if that's all you're going to do, then obviously the safest thing would be to turn the phone off (or silence the ringer) before you start driving. So it really seems to me like the whole headset for rejecting calls argument is about wanting to have a headset for having phone conversations.

Yes, that is my point, people should not talk on the phone while driving. It's extremely dangerous. I already cited a couple studies that demonstrate this and there are plenty more if you bother to do a little research. The same however does not go for passenger conversations, radios, singing, chewing gum. I already responded to that above and explained the reasons and cited studies. Drunk drivers drive better than people on cell phones, even with handsfree headsets, what's so hard to understand about that? All distractions are not equal. You're engaging in a logical fallacy, where there's no difference between anything, so that you can justify talking on the phone and not care about who you might maim or kill. By your logic, if distractions from chewing bubble gum to talking on the phone are equal, then watching television and steering with your feet just for fun is not dangerous either. It's just silly to act as if all distractions are exactly the same and have exactly the same risk involved.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

No, I am trying to get out the clear message that before I had a hands free kit I came into uncomfortable situations/situations where I felt I was being distracted and had not full control A LOT MORE OFTEN. Almost every time someone called me while I was driving.

My subjective experience is really clear - if you don't have a hands free solution then you're a bigger threat in traffic than if you have one. I have no doubt about it because I have tried both and the difference was huge.

Add this to the fact that i without exception ALWAYS rejected calls in the phone before I got this kit. I have no doubt what so ever that I am a safer driver when this kit is turned on and working. Because I have experienced it.

I am one else. Consider yourself officially surprised.

Yes, that is just silly. That is why I never said anything remotely like that. So using it as an argument in this discussion is equally silly.

All distractions are cumulative.

And please stop telling me that I'm looking for an excuse. It's like if I said you're just looking for an excuse that drunken driving is not as bad as people think. Argumentation like this has no place here.

From your lack of recognizing what I am saying, I get the impression you only have the theory to lean on here. Being able to safely remove an distraction with the press of a button on the steering wheel or car stereo compared to having a vibrating phone fighting for your attention in your pocket is about as clear comparison as you can possibly get. One is safer than the other.

Once that phone is ringing, it's too late to should have turned it off before you sat into the car. Having that remote control is very, very much better than not.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Yes... and even with the handsfree solution, you're still a bigger threat in traffic than most other drivers who drive without distractions (ie: phone hooked up to a handsfree system).

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Someone set up a Brainstorm for the volume rockers to be used as hardware answer/end call buttons. There, problem solved. :P

Re: New review on Engadget
 

I wonder if, with the n900, is possible to use the fm transmitter to put the call on the car sound system?

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Agreed, you can definitely tell they like it. And for the pleasantly surprised part, I said 'mostly' didn't I?

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Hmm... I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Solution vs system?

Anything you have to struggle with to enable you to answer or reject a call, like a wired ear bud or even a bluetooth one, is bad. I think a built in solution in the car is a good solution, but the parrot principle is good too. If you are going to be available on the phone at all, that is.

I'll readily admit that having no phone in the car is safer than having one turned on.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Also, they said it was a good match for early adaptors. Hey, that's us! ^_^

Re: New review on Engadget
 

All though I agree on the principle, I don't agree on the selected button. On my current phone I use the volume toggle more or less constantly while talking on the phone. What other buttons are there? The camera shutter...

Re: New review on Engadget
 

My phone has a button for use while driving. I use the 'off' button. End of distraction. ;)

Re: New review on Engadget
 

That is without doubt the safest... Uhm... second safest option.

http://www.2da6s.com/2009/07/cell-ph...ed-inside-car/

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Errr... what did that say? I couldn't quite make it out. Sounded like it had been eaten by a Babelfish.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

As I and others now have said, all you have to do is turn of your phone when you're driving and you won't have the problem of being distracted by the phone ringing. So the whole "the phone is ringing and I'm so distracted" argument is no excuse for talking on the phone while driving.

As far as your subjective experience goes. I'm pretty sure that one person's subjective experience is not considered by any standard to be meaningful evidence or to prove anything. I've been citing scientific studies. Studies which include discussing how people are really good at subjectively deluding themselves into thinking they're doing something well, when the opposite is true. So I think you're just fooling yourself. But you can explain how subjectively you know you're driving well to the group of school children that you mow down, if they're still alive enough to hear you.

This is actually what you said:

That sure seems to imply that you think passenger conversations, radios, singing, and chewing gum are equally distracting. I don't see anything there saying you were talking about cumulative effects. You just keep switching your argument around ,slipping back and forth between the question of rejecting calls, the question of talking on the phone, and the question of other distractions, but no matter what angle you take, you come to the conclusion that driving will having a phone conversation is safe enough (in fact safer than listening to the phone ring and not answering) and as safe as tuning the radio, chewing gum, etc. That's why I think you're making excuses.

On the other hand, I never said that drunken driving wasn't as bad as it is. I assumed that everyone recognizes that drunken driving is really bad. And so when I cited studies that show that people on the phone (including on headsets) drive worse than drunk drivers, I assumed a reasonable person would be able to understand that means talking on the phone and drivng is pretty bad. It does not at all follow that drunken driving is therefore okay or that anyone was suggesting this. The fact that talking on the phone and driving may be worse than drunken driving, does not make the first thing less bad. That's just more of your slippery slope, logical fallacy, reasoning.

Theory? I cited actually studies. It's not a theory. They put people in cars and in simulators, gave them alcohol or gave them cell phones, and had them drive. They looked at broad statistical evidence from actual accidents. And they found in actual reality people who talk on the cell phone, with or without a handsfree headset, drive worse and have actual real accidents. One study at the University of Utah found that talking on the cell phone (handsfree or not) causes 330,000 injuries in the U.S per year, and 2600 deaths. So that's my evidence. Your evidence is your "subjective" feeling that you drive safe enough with a handsfree headset, which is neither good evidence (you're most likely fooling yourself, something also considered in these studies), nor statistically meaningful.

Here are the studies and more again:

http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
http://www.distracteddriving.ca/engl...avance_001.pdf
http://www.ama.ab.ca/images/images_p...ellPhones4.pdf
http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/horrey/pap...HF2006meta.pdf

These are scientific studies carried out at universties.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

It's not that hard to test yourself actually. The simplest study for testing txting and cellphone usage while driving just had a straight empty area that you could drive on and a light on the dashboard that would go from green to red.

Just drive straight, talking or texting as you normally do. The light goes from green to red randomly and you have to stop as quickly as possible. The scientist that did that research was surprised at how different his results were when not txting or talking when compared to driving.

Of course the interesting thing about talking on the cellphone is I wonder if how much you pay attention to the voice conversation affects you. I know I can't multi-task when talking on the phone and say play a videogame, what usually happens is I tune out the phone and wind up playing the videogame ignoring everything on the phone side. Careful guys this can get you in trouble with your gf.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Yes, one of the things that's interesting in these studies is that when it comes to just driving straight and staying in a lane, people on the phone, texting, or who have been drinking for that matter, do an okay job. Although they do tend to randomly slow down, which aside form being dangerous is just incredibly annoying and I see people on the phone doing this all the time.

But the problem arises when it comes to reaction times, as you explain. When something unexpected happens, people on the phone (including with handsfree headsets) react significantly more slowly. And at the speeds that cars travel even a fraction of a second is easily the difference between averting an accident and plowing over a pedestrian.

In response to your last question, the studies actually show that it is the conversation itself that is the distraction (as I explained above). It's not the listening, though, so much as the talking (hence why listening to the radio isn't as distracting). Having to formulate a response turns out to really occupy and distract the brain. (Probably also why you're able to tune out your gf and play a video game, as long as she's talking and you're "listening.") But the problem with the cellphone is that even when something happens on the road, the person on the other end of the line just keeps talking, and the driver tends to just go ahead and try to respond (all the while driving into a brick wall, etc.). Whereas if the passenger is in the car, they usually go silent or yell as the brick wall approaches and let the driver do something, rather than expect a response to whatever they just said about the weather.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Haha unless your guy responses are "uh huh, mm hmm". Though I am a psychologist in making (not counseling! Human Factors Psychology/Engineering :D) =P but everyone seems to take the old psychoanalytical approach when thinking of psychologists so it works out for me anyway.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

The most dangerous aspect about this is that most people consistently OVERESTIMATE their capability to cope with driving and handling a phonecall at the same time.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

Yes, I even found this totally fascinating Stanford University study (which I linked to above already) that concluded people who multitask a lot not only perform worse while they're multitasking (at the multiple tasks involved), but when called upon later to multitask, they do it worse than people who generally do not multitask a lot. And, there's even some possibility that the effect may be permanent. That is, multitasking a lot might permanently make people more distractable and less able to focus on any task. The heavy multitaskers turned out to be less able to determine what's relevant and to have poorer memories. Ironically they think they're great multitaskers, when they're actually the worst.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25...ful/index.html
http://www.physorg.com/news170349575.html

Re: New review on Engadget
 

No.

This is clear and concise:

Removing the distraction of talking on the phone in the car: That would be safer.
The same goes for the rest of the list. Removing the distraction of <a given list of distractions> in the car: That would be safer.

There is only one way to read it unless you want to be difficult.

I have repeatedly agreed that turning off the phone before you enter the car is safer. Not having a car radio in the car is also safer. I have in fact been a passenger in a car crash caused by a car radio. Changing radio channel is dangerous as it takes a hand off the steering wheel, eyes off the road, twists your body to a side, making you pull at the steering wheel, changes the balance of your inner ear. I haven't said there's any "equals" here, I have said it's a distraction that would be safer to remove. You are argumenting with putting meanings behind my words that are nowhere near them.


No. I have said that listening to the phone ring is a bigger distraction than talking for the same amount of time. Anything you say about me coming to conclusions that any one other thing is equal to any other thing, is untrue.

Read again what I said. That you even defended yourself against the idea of this means you truly do not understand what I said at all. Reasoning. Yes, please.

I have not denied anything these studies have found. Not anything. I have come with an appending point. That the most stressful and thus dangerous part of a phonecall is when you receive it unexpectedly and are unable to safely remove the distraction. It is the most dangerous because it's an actual physical distraction. I don't care how many studies there is that say that driving and talking is dangerous. Being stung by a bee while driving is more dangerous. Getting an incoming phone call with a vibrating phone is somewhere in between. And turning off the phone is safer.

I don't know why you fight so hard, but I would appreciate if you stop putting all these words in my mouth when I clearly have more than enough words and opinions myself. I can make a fool of myself all on my own, than you vely much.

Frankly, I only continue this discussion here (quite offtopic) because I hate it when people don't seem to understand what I am trying to say. Understand, not agree. I feel that for that purpose, it would be easier if we moved this discussion over to PM.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

I find this interesting too.

However, I'd like to say that I'm pretty sure that texting and driving is quite different from talking and driving. Texting has a very physical aspect of removing hands and eyes from where they belong.

Again, I am quite clear that talking on the phone WILL affect your driving negatively and it IS safer to not do it.

This is absolutely true. Infact, it's still true if you cut the quote a bit on the end.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

OT: Nice degree! Make sure you get some internships/experience before your job search, I had a devil of a time finding work back in 2001 - although it was an undergrad degree.

Re: New review on Engadget
 

That's actually the first time you've said that. You almost sort of said it in one other instance that I can see, but not really.

But the point that it seems like you really won't concede is that talking on the phone, including with a handsfree headset, is orders of magnitude more dangerous than all of these other distractions. So much so that multiple scientific studies have found that people drive worse talking on the phone then drinking and driving. That claim just can't be made about fiddling with the radio. Can other distractions cause an accident? Sure. Overall, in general, as a social/statistical phenomenon are they anywhere near as dangerous as talking on the phone? No. You keep throwing in other distractions to muddy the point and take attention away from how dangerous talking on the phone is, which you're defending as being safer than listening to a phone ring and not answering it.

To wit:

It's interesting that you start off that second statement saying you have not denied any of the studies about the danger of talking on the phone and driving. And then you end it denying those studies.

Honestly, I find the position that listening to a phone ring or vibrate and not answering it is more dangerous than talking on the phone absurd. Absolutely nothing supports this assertion other than your "subjective" feeling about it. Does anyone else in this forum, other than volt, find not answering a ringing phone to be "the most stressful and thus dangerous part of a phonecall"? I have cited multiple studies that look at statistically what happens and causes real accidents. Listening to a ringing phone is not on the list. You counter these studies with your "subjective" feeling. If you personally find the phone ringing so distracting, there is an obvious solution, which is to turn the phone off before you drive. So using it as an excuse to defend doing something incredibly dangerous, talking on the phone and driving, is unjustified.

The reason I keep responding to your posts, since you ask, is because, as I said in my very first post on this topic, I find it astonishing that people casually mention in public forums how they need their phone designed a certain way so they can talk on it and drive or text and drive, as if talking on the phone or texting and driving is an okay thing to do. No matter that they are selfishly endangering others. No matter that it's as dangerous as drinking and driving. I think a casual attitude about talking on the phone or texting and driving is shameful and should not pass without comment. There is no defense for these activities. It's like defending drinking and driving. So I can just not fathom why you have gone to such great lengths to focus on the distraction of a ringing phone, which could easily be fixed by turning it off before you get in the car, as an excuse to defend talking on the phone and driving, for any period of time. The safe solution is obvious, everything else is just an excuse.