Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*cell\s+phone\s+wiring\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*cell\s+phone\s+wiring\s*$/: 34 ]

Total 34 documents matching your query.

21. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: Epetrevich@relavis.com; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:14:25 -0500; Ok, I was trying NOT to get dragged into this conversation, but here This statistic, MAY be true, but it MAY also be VERY improper. Think about this. NOT all drivers HAVE cell phones. So, you need to; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00216.html (10,655 bytes)
22. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: Scott Hall <sch8489@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:14:40 -0500 (EST); hmm... I'd agree to certain extent (which is why I originally posted about integrating the phone), but I'm also in agreement that regualr conversation takes up some gray matter also. it may just be t; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00217.html (10,637 bytes)
23. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Rex Burkheimer" <rex@txol.net>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:28:57 -0600; No question driving occupies grey matter. The faster you drive, the more bandwidth driving uses. Loping down I-20 with the cruise on between Abilene and Midland require a brain the size of a peanut,; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00218.html (12,164 bytes)
24. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Tim Mullen" <Tim.Mullen@trw.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:58:45 -0800; The difference is that the driver/passenger conversation is a shared experience. Both are (should be) aware of the surroundings, and experience the same events. When things get "hairy" the conversati; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00219.html (9,990 bytes)
25. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Tim Mullen" <Tim.Mullen@trw.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:14:13 -0800; Inch, The study they did, was not comparing drivers who owned cell phone, etc. It was a study of wrecks. Note I don't call them accidents - kind of a pet peeve of mine. An accident is something unavo; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00220.html (9,064 bytes)
26. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: Donald H Locker <dhl@chelseamsl.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:15:01 -0500 (EST); I've viewed a few other responses to this thread, and have to add that (IMO) talking to a passenger is usually accompanied by that passenger becoming a part of the driving -- like someone else keepin; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00221.html (9,311 bytes)
27. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "JustBrits" <justbrits@mediaone.net>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:29:36 -0600; <<I don't doubt this statistic >> Actually, it is WORSE then the DD. <<but I have a question. If it is the conversation that cause the problem how come talking to your passenger does not result in th; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00222.html (8,423 bytes)
28. RE: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Paul F Mele" <Paul.Mele@usermail.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:52:29 -0500; tho they've observed same accident rate with hands free vs hand held because it occupies your hand, and it takes both to control the car. Because they tend to slide out of place when you try to cradl; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00224.html (9,652 bytes)
29. RE: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Paul F Mele" <Paul.Mele@usermail.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:52:29 -0500; I haven't read an explanation. My thoughts: content of conversation is likely less intense in car; passenger can see when traffic is bad and hopefully shuts up(!) or is willing to repeat; phone user; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00225.html (9,675 bytes)
30. RE: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@Prodigy.Net>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:00:00 -0700; Tim, I don't think that's what it said. Or at least that is not what I read in the abstract. http://www.nejm.org/content/1997/0336/0007/0453.asp The study refers to calls made CLOSE to the time of t; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00226.html (9,128 bytes)
31. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: Randall Young <randallyoung@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:07:59 -0800; I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split here. The abstract states "The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was no; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00227.html (9,283 bytes)
32. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Charles R. Schultz" <n2pua4@peoplepc.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:35:43 -0600; I had wondered why there was never a similar outcry about CB radios and ham radios in cars. Then I came to the same conclusion as Paul, that you don't usually have detailed business discussions, or,; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00229.html (8,690 bytes)
33. RE: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@Prodigy.Net>; Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:55:13 -0700; there cell phone That's the hair I'm trying to split. Seems to me we've heard a lot of negative info about cell phones and drivers. If this information is based on the report that was referenced, I; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00234.html (8,085 bytes)
34. Re: cell phone wiring (score: 1): Author: Randall Young <randallyoung@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:02:26 -0800; As I read the abstract, they in effect compared the accident rates of cell phone owners when using their phones, to the accident rates of those same cell phone owners when not using their phones. The; /html/shop-talk/2000-12/msg00235.html (8,954 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 34
Page: [1] [2]