Recent studies suggest that it doesn't matter whether it is hand-held or hands-free, that it's the
conversation that is actually the distraction, not one hand holding the phone.
How many times have to come close to an accident because the ahole in the next car is talking on
the phone?
--- Allen <profox /at/ gatwicksoftware .D.O.T com> wrote:
> We have the same law here. It was put in place when a death was caused by a
> driver too intent on the phone to miss the pedestrian. I don't understand
> why they don't ban cars as they cause many more deaths but that will never
> happen.
> We also get people on the phone while driving, making themselves up, reading
> maps, Harry potter, ok the last one was not true as far as I know.
> Allen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces /at/ leafe .D.O.T com] On
> Behalf Of Gilbert Hale
> Sent: 30 April 2006 14:03
> To: profoxtech@leafe.com
> Subject: RE: [NF] "get it now" feature on Verizon cell phone, can it be
> hacked?
>
> > but I think Bluetooth headsets outside
> look silly.
>
> I am not in disagreement that the Bluetooth earpieces can look rather
> unusual, or even silly. But I see a practical side to such a device for my
> purposes. You see, here in the state of New York (I live in the Northwest
> part of Upstate NY as opposed to NY city) we have some really brilliant
> politicians who felt it was far safer to require drivers to use their cell
> phones "hands free" as opposed to letting us simply use a cell phone while
> holding it up to one ear when driving.
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2006 Michael Madigan |
