Endless Knots

2010!

As promised, back after a digital break. Those used to seeing me affixed to a screen have been asking what it was like to go offline for nearly two weeks. Quite pleasant. I liked being free of the burden; of sitting without wonder as to whether I'd received a response -- or of fidgeting with guilt because I hadn't responded to a request. In the interest of honesty, that dreaded cloak, I did log on twice to deal with financial matters. I did answer my phone and respond to texts but missed a number because I didn't keep my phone by my side. And, since I apparently cannot live without some modicum of guilt, I fretted that I hadn't informed some people that I would be taking a break. But all of us survived. Try it sometime.

They knew and didn't tell us? Outrageous

Thanks, again, to Matt Richtel for the excellent reporting on the dangers of driving while talking. Yesterday, the second-in-two-days Page One headline in The New York Times: "Driven to Distraction: US Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving."

I don't need to go into more detail than this: The US government has had the data proving that it's extremely dangerous--akin to being drunk--to yabber on the phone while driving since 2003. Hands free or not. Makes no difference.

Richtel has done a superb job of following the timeline, putting together the salient facts, and pointing fingers in the right direction.

We all have stories to tell about the risks; I've been posting mine as regular readers know. And I've come to the sorry conclusion that the person who sideswiped me in Brooklyn last week was likely on the phone.

Here are a few blood-boiling paragraphs from Richtel's fury-maker:

The former head of the highway safety agency said he was urged to withhold the research to avoid antagonizing members of Congress who had warned the agency to stick to its mission of gathering safety data but not to lobby states.

Critics say that rationale and the failure of the Transportation Department, which oversees the highway agency, to more vigorously pursue distracted driving has cost lives and allowed to blossom a culture of behind-the-wheel multitasking.

“We’re looking at a problem that could be as bad as drunk driving, and the government has covered it up,” said Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety.

It took filing under the Freedom of Information Act, by the way, to force the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to release the report.

Now I'm asking readers to leave a comment if you've given up the deadly habit.

The prosecution rests

In today's New York Times, on the front page with a big picture, Matt Richter makes the closing argument--and draws the depressing conclusion in "Driven to Distraction: Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cell Phone Risks." Seems like common sense is not working; nor are facts; nor is experience. No matter how much info we throw in front of the problem, people continue to get on their phones and drive over it.

I've been writing about this here and here and here and here and...

Once again, the facts, stated so clearly in Richter's piece:

Extensive research shows the dangers of distracted driving. Studies say that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the point at which drivers are generally considered intoxicated. Research also shows that hands-free devices do not eliminate the risks, and may worsen them by suggesting that the behavior is safe.

New to me in the article this explanation for why we continue to put the lives of others--not to mention our own--at risk:

Scientists are grappling, too, with perhaps the broadest question hanging over the phenomenon of distracted driving: Why do people, knowing the risk, continue to talk while driving? The answer, they say, is partly the intense social pressures to stay in touch and always be available to friends and colleagues. And there also is the neurological response of multitaskers. They show signs of addiction — to their gadgets.

John Ratey, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and a specialist on the science of attention, explained that when people use digital devices, they get a quick burst of adrenaline, “a dopamine squirt.” Without it, people grow bored with simpler activities like driving. Mr. Ratey said the modern brain is being rewired to crave stimulation, a condition he calls acquired attention deficit disorder.

“We need that constant pizzazz, the reward, the intensity,” he said. He largely dismisses the argument that people need the time in the car to be productive. “The justification for doing work is just that — a justification to be engaged,” he said.

In other words, it's all about the rush...acquired attention deficit disorder. Heaven help us. And please. If you're driving while reading this, turn off your phone and, "Keep your eyes on your driving and your hands on the wheel..."

1 in 4 text while driving!

This is horrifying. Vlingo survey of 5000 people.

You

know

how

I

feel

about this.

My love affair continues

I know I should stop shooting all my pictures with my iPhone (hint, Apple: higher resolution and a zoom, please) but I can't. I just can't.

This one, taken at the Apple store on Prince Street in New York, reminds me of my favorite picture book when I was little: a factory with the front wall removed, many stories high, with workers busily constructing things and strange contraptions transporting objects from floor to floor, complete with chutes, fright elevators, pulleys, and carts.

This shot of the two-story Apple store reminds me of that book. If you remember such a book and/or know its name, please comment. I've looked in many a used bookstore for that very volume.

Shall we take numbers?

Stuart, as as per below, comments on my post of yesterday and proposes a method for dealing with these drunkish drivers. Is this the right approach? I kind of did this to a friend in a previous post, though not by name or by license plate - he ended up outing himself. But I have to admit that I had precisely this instinct yesterday, Stuart. Great minds, etc. Everyone, please weigh in.

Seriously, there ought to be a law. The next time the woman will be hitting a child, or an elderly person, or who knows what or whom. I just pray it's not someone in my family, or a close friend, or a neighbor.

Remember the old days when we'd go to the supermarket and there was a list of people who had bounced checks? Why don't we post the color, make, model, and license number of the cars/SUVs driven by these drunk drivers. Shame is powerful.

Anyone with me?

"So many drunk drivers"

Cartoon by Gary Varvel, editorial cartoonist for The Indianapolis Star

Back to my least favorite subject - phones and driving. Remember my incident in Newtonville a few weeks back when a woman wielding a very large white SUV screeched to a halt in lieu of running me over then screamed at me for pointing out that she was on the phone?

You can figure this one out, smart readers. Yesterday, and approximately two miles from the original crime scene, that very same woman almost drove into our car. Guess why?

She...was...on...her...#%@#one.

This time she was pulling out of a parking lot. Mindlessly and carelessly.

So today (no, she doesn't figure into the next part), another SUV driver, phone to ear, swerved around a car making a perfectly legal right turn on our street and of course did the near-wheelie thing to avoid us, causing the one driving my car to say, "So many drunk drivers."

There oughtta be a law.

Priceless but then again it's Verizon

If I were just on Twitter, I'd simply RT this, in the argot, as in ReTweet, as in repeat someone else's tuh-weet. But alas most of you would be denied this gem, "Tales of data pirates: Opting out of Verizon's open-ended sharing," via David Weinberger:

A small legalistic pamphlet from Verizon arrived today telling me that I have 45 days to opt out of “agreeing” to let Verizon share Customer Proprietary Network Information, i.e., “information created by virtue of your relationship with Verizon Wireless,” including “services purchased (including specific calls you make and receive,” billing info, technical info and location info. They promise to only share this with “affiliates, agents and parent companies.” It will definitely not be shared with “unrelated third parties” … unless, perhaps that third party pays Verizon to become an affiliate, whatever the heck “affiliate ” means...

For those who, "by virtue of your relationship with Verizon Wireless," deep, profound, eternal, and meaningful, I'm sure, are affected, you want to check out David's post. Wireless and priceless.

Can you please repeat the question?

Want to do a little survey with me? During your next few conference calls, please keep track of how many times someone says, "Can you please repeat the question?" What is that person doing? We all know - not paying attention. I'm wondering how many people are actually paying attention during conference calls.

And although it has nothing to do with this topic, devoted readers will appreciate this anecdote from today, from, yes, Newtonville, Mass., right near the dreaded cell-phone driver incident of last week that provoked so many comments.

A guy makes a u-turn in the middle of Walnut Street, holding up traffic in both directions. Makes the u-turn badly so that he's backing up and pulling forward, back and forth. Finally, I see the problem, HE'S DRUNK! HE'S ON HIS CELL PHONE!

"No texting at the taaaa-ble" or at Selectmen meetings

Keen readers may recall my post, "What Mom Says," wherein I uploaded Anita Renfroe's hilarious rendition of the William Tell Overture, whereby she compresses into just under three minutes what a mother is prone to say in 24 hours. It provoked one of my biggest days ever on ye ole blogge as friends far and wide laughed themselves silly watching her video.

I'm reminded of Ms Renfroe - thanks to our Twitter followers/followees over at The Boston Channel, who just reported on the newest rule passed by the Billerica, Mass, Board of Selectmen. For those of you from away, selectmen are the peculiar version of town council members unique to New England.

"Town Bans 'Texting' at Selectman Meetings," (don't-cha love the special quotes around texting?), says The Boston Channel report, from which I now quote:

BILLERICA, Mass. -- Members of a Massachusetts town's governing body can cry, shout and speak for long periods during meetings. But they can't send text messages and e-mails.

Billerica's board of selectmen voted 3-2 Monday night to ban its members from sending text messages and e-mails during its public meetings.

Selectman Bob Correnti said he proposed the ban after a resident complained to him that it was "annoying" to see fellow Selectman Marc Lombardo texting while others were speaking. Correnti also said he was concerned that text messages could become public records...

("Annoying?" It's a good thing people can't see what the selectmen are thinking, which might be even more disturbing than watching them text.)

Why the title for the post and how does it relate? One of the unforgettable lines in "What Mom Says" comes in a string of don't-you-dares and is precisely: "No texting at the table." Got that, Mr. Lombardo?