Tried to have a go but I have a problem with seeing 3D moving images on a 2D screen. (the HPT is a real no, no for me)
How did you do 
Answered all questions and got the t-shirt score correct.
Didn’t see the other thing tho, I wont give it away 
Well that’s a different kind of game…I failed to answer 8 questions, Instead of pressing the space bar I kept on pressing ‘B’. I saw the weird bunny thing which kind of confused me at the time but the thing that done it for me was the shear amount of people you have to count. As you say rog, it is kind of hard watching 3d people on a low quality jerky video in 2d
Thats shocking isnt it!!!
I failed miserably…
This could be on hand held or hands free - it makes no difference 
The only thing that is likely to be different with hand held is that a certain amount of vehicle control could be lost.
The specific law introduced to outlaw just hand held mobiles does not make sense as it is the actual conversation that is the problem.
ROG:
This could be on hand held or hands free - it makes no differenceThe only thing that is likely to be different with hand held is that a certain amount of vehicle control could be lost.
The specific law introduced to outlaw just hand held mobiles does not make sense as it is the actual conversation that is the problem.
Looks like they think driving with one hand is dangerous.
I do it all the time, I know a guy who can’t use his legs and controls the accelerator and brake with one hand and steering wheel with the other.
bubsy06:
you are allowed to take a call on a call hands free but not hand held.
Why is that?
Because those that make the laws did not ask the experts first - as usual
Also it might be ‘difficult’ to spot those talking on hands free
ROG:
bubsy06:
you are allowed to take a call on a call hands free but not hand held.
Why is that?Because those that make the laws did not ask the experts first - as usual
Also it might be ‘difficult’ to spot those talking on hands free
And they would have to ban talking to a passenger as well.
To be honest you’ll never be able to ban people from using hands free. It’s not the phone that distracts people, its the conversation in general…having a passenger in the car would give the same effect as its still a conversation. In fact having the person in the car is even more distracting as you’re more likely to look at them instead of the road.
The reason it’s banned to use a phone whilst holding it is simply to do with the ‘lack of control’ scenario…you cant properly steer, change gears and signal with only one hand.
bubsy06:
And they would have to ban talking to a passenger as well.
Not the same - try both in a safe situation (hands free of course) and you will see the difference.
The ‘human’ interaction between 2 people who are actually there is far different from having a conversation with one who is not.
i got 28 out of 27.
An alternate view. Some might not like this.
Just my opinion, but . . . . . . . .
Poppycock.
Simple and plain as that.
It seems (to me) a totally unrealistic comparison. Comparing apples to oranges, in relation to cabbage and banana while wondering why cantaloupes are so cute and wishing the same could be said of honeydew
I was recently quite disgusted when I heard/read of a driver being jailed for ploughing into the back of a line of stationary traffic whilst using a mobile phone. It seemed the main crux of the prosecution was that he’d been in conversation (either hands-free or bluetooth) for 20 minutes at the time of impact.
What disgusted me was that although the law had begun to say (by inference) that it is/was legal - therefore okay - to use hands free fitted or bluetooth systems; some “expert” stood up and said "Ah - but the conversation distracted him to such extend he didn’t see the stationary traffic . . . . . "
That is, at the very least, the best example of moving the goal posts after the event I’ve seen in a good while.
Attention versus Distraction.
I think the single most prominent problem we have on the roads today is that vehicles have become almost “too easy” to drive. Too many seem to fall into the trap of not actively “driving” It’s something we just do, to get to Mother’s - or the shop, or to work.
The human mind is a wondrous tool. It can process the information in front of it in realtime, while remembering things from the past in vivid detail and imagine/prepare for things not yet in sight. But we have to control that attention. It’s our choice, by and large, to divert a proportion of our attention to where we believe it to be best served. For me the whole let down to “test” in Rog’s link was the question from the woman . . . . “Are you listening to me ?” "Well, no Dear. Not fully. The vast majority of my attention is focused on the physical task in hand. Your voice is a minor distraction from that.
And that’s where most of the “research by experts” falls down. Think if you will, about the drink/drive laws. After 2 or 3 pints of beer I would consider myself incapable of being able to control my attention well enough to drive safely. I would be impaired. There will be some that would say the same but only after 3 or 4 pints. There may be some that will admit the same after just one. But he “experts” have decided that 79mg per something or other is legal and 80 mg illegal. For everyone. In all circumstances. Will there come a time when a truck driver, although within the legal definition of being under the limit, is successfully prosecuted for being impaired while driving with 72 and a half mg per something or other ■■? . . . . . . Without the necessary change in the legislation. Please don’t misunderstand that example as being in support of drink driving. It isn’t.
It irks me greatly when someone, “expert” or not puts forward their opinion as fact. Pretty much as most “driving assessors” do. But what irks me more is that those opinions are then taken as fact and acted upon. “It matters not what is true. It’s what people believe to be true that carries more weight”
Personally, I’ve often found the built in, factory fitted and after market hands free kits to be more distracting than when I used to hold the phone to my ear. I would divert more of my attention, both mental and visual, to the microphone and speaker. In fact, there’s an advert just been on TV for (I think) a Peugeot that has “built in hands free” Both the guy, and the girl, in separate cars tilt their head, and therefore their attention toward the centre console of the dashboard to speak and listen.
that was hard but then again you don’t drive around keeping tabs on the amount of people that cross in front of you. I still seen everyone therefor I see myself as still being safe
Any kind of conversation is distracting whilst driving.
Using a mobile is worse because as well as being distracting, it also involves a lack of control. I can always remember my dad talking to his boss whilst trying to negotiate a roundabout when he gave me a lift to work one morning. I ended up operating the indicators for him 
.
Hands free kits, well you gain the control back but they are still distracting. I think the reason any conversation via a phone is more distracting is because the speech on a phone is rarely as clear as when your talking one to one, so you have pay more attention in following the conversation.
Of course even talking to a passenger is distracting. I had to laugh at a “Police, Camera” Action" program.
After the usual patronising by Drink Driver Alister Stewart, telling us how dangerous the roads are how crap we are a driving, his side kick did an article driving along with an “expert” who was mapping danger spots on the A5 in the Midlands. They filmed him as he drove & interviewed this expert & he kept on turning his head to look at him as he drove along. Hypocrite!
As said before it’s up to you as a driver to ignore the distraction if you think it’s unsafe to pay it any attention.
As for the guy who drove into the back of the traffic que & got jailed. Well it’s fair to say he caused the accident by his inattention (aka driving without due care / attention). His inattention was probably due to the fact he was on the blower, legally or not, & so he was punished. I’d expect he would get the same punishment if he was changing over the radio or scratching his arse as he drove. Both legal to do so long as you are capable of not crashing whilst you do it.
Secretelephant & dambuster - great posts.
dambuster:
“It matters not what is true. It’s what people believe to be true that carries more weight”
Have you been reading my favourite book 
Secretelephant:
Well it’s fair to say he caused the accident by his inattention (aka driving without due care / attention). His inattention was probably due to the fact he was on the blower, legally or not, & so he was punished. I’d expect he would get the same punishment if he was changing over the radio or scratching his arse as he drove. Both legal to do so long as you are capable of not crashing whilst you do it.
That’s sort of part of my point. And what (to me) makes a mockery of the “Use of mobiles” law.
ROG:
Secretelephant & dambuster - great posts.dambuster:
“It matters not what is true. It’s what people believe to be true that carries more weight”Have you been reading my favourite book
PMSL - Not unless it was written by a Yellow Pages Ad salesman in the late 80s/early 90s
“No extra charge after midnight”