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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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