ancient wrote:Rolyan wrote:No, I don't think I was being obtuse, although I fear you are now being deliberately puerile.
It was clear that I was generalising 2 basic camps. Those who believe that it is dangerous to use a hands free mobile and the use should be banned, and those who don't. Both sides have reasons for believing that. Both opinions have some validity.
Matt understood entirely the clear and simple point I was making. I suspect you did also. You just reacted differently, and I'm sure you had your reasons.
You generalised the discussion as 2 basic camps and then misrepresented the one with which you are arguing against:Rolyan wrote:It's fairly clear that there are two basic positions.
One is that hands free mobile phones are a distraction, as proven by independent studies and/or empirical knowledge, and that as the risk outweighs the likelihood of all drivers being willing or able to manage the situation, then it should be banned.
The other is that hands free mobile phones are not a distraction and that the studies are not robust, and that as the risk is small and all drivers can be trusted to manage the situation, then it should not be banned.
Both those positions are valid and very easy to understand
This is clearly a straw-man argument, unless you are unable to see the distinction (as I pointed out).ancient wrote:No-one on this thread (that I can see) has said that mobile phones are not a distraction. What has been said is that the degree of distraction varies depending on how they are used and that the studies at best, force a particular type of use which is distracting. Studies also show that visualisation is a major part of the distraction. But there are other in-car activities* which also require visualisation which are not similarly demonised, despite their potential to equally distract.
*Following an interesting play, listening (and bopping along to ) involving music, planning the meal to be prepared on arriving home ...
That you react with insult instead of addressing the difference between your statement (that people are taking the position that hands-free mobiles do not distract) and the mine (that the distraction is recognised but not confined to mobile phones) tells me much about your attitude to disagreement.
I didn't insult you and I thought I had adressed your comments.
I generalised 2 basic positions. Your pedantic attention to semantic details did not alter that. But I'll try again.
There are two basic positions. Those that think it's not dangerous enough to be banned. Those that think it is. People in both camps believe they are correct and that the others are wrong. As I said very clearly, thats understandable, we always think our opinions are correct and by implication, those with differing opinions are incorrect. If those opinions continue to be based on nothing more than our own interpretation of reality, based on our own distorted, biased perceptions, then we will continue with another 49 pages.
I've repeatedly said that the only way to move this forward is to get independent research into the safety aspect. Otherwise everyone will continue to fall back on the belief that their opinion is the correct one.
So that's really clear, as I say Matt understood my position immediately and it was adressed to him. Obviously you can continue to make more of it than the simple comment that it was. But if you do, it may say more about you than you realise.