Pruitt Arrested

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

So, strictly speaking, since driving drunk is defined as having a BAC-level of .08 while operating a vehicle, and studies show talking on a cell phone while driving causes the same loss of reaction time as someone with a BAC-level of .08 (i.e., someone who is legally drunk), then someone talking on their cell phone while driving has a lessening of reaction time equivalent to someone driving drunk.

Of course, how drunk you are will affect your reaction time, just like how emotionally invested in the cell phone conversation will affect your reaction time.  But, as a general rule, talking on your cell phone = driving drunk, since driving drunk is legally defined as a blood alcohol level above .08.

No, that's not true.  The definition of driving drunk is not "having a BAC-level of .08 while operating a vehicle", strictly speaking.  That's one very narrow example of impaired driving, but it's not the definition.  You know that, but you're twisting facts to fit your agenda.

Since you've proven that you're not a poster that should be taken seriously, or that understands statistics or scientific studies, I'll ignore you from here on out and allow you to wallow in your chosen ignorance.  It's a waste of my time to try to provide facts to somebody who is either willfully blind or deliberately obtuse. 

Whatever, Roy.  If you were so ready to let me 'wallow in [my] chosen ignorance,' you wouldn't have responded in the first place.  But you've got more pride than that and as Forum Manager I suppose it's your privilege to ignore argumentation you cannot refute and to hurl false accusations at those that dare to challenge your stranglehold on all things logical, scientific, statistical, or otherwise knowable...

By the way, here's the definition of drunk driving from http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/drunk/

The definition of drunk driving is consistent throughout the United States. Every state and the District of Columbia defines impairment as driving with a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) at or above 0.08 percent.

That definition looks just like mine, don't you think?  I suppose it's possible the Insurance Information Institute is as statistically and scientifically challenged as you happen to think I am...probably not though. 

If you deign to respond to my 'chosen ignorance,' please feel free to share your superior and broader definition of drunk driving, if not for me, but perhaps for all the rest of the Celticblog community. 

[Roy Hobbs]

The definition of drunk driving is consistent throughout the United States. Every state and the District of Columbia defines impairment as driving with a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) at or above 0.08 percent.

[BballTim]

The problem here is that he didn't go in and shoplift, or go 5 over the speed limit, or something minor. He willfully chose to put others lives in danger and those of us who have children in our cars out on the road are expected to just say "No big deal. He didn't kill anyone this time. Everyone is doing it..."

  I think that might be a little melodramatic. I don't know what his BAC was, but there's no evidence that his driving was erratic or that he was not in control of his vehicle when he was driving.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

[BballTim]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

  I'd be inclined to disagree with those studies. They are basically putting talking on a cell phone on par with conversing with someone in the car, which people have been doing since cars were invented. It would also be likely that listening to a car radio would be about 1/2 as distracting as talking on a cell phone.

[crownsy]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

you wanna link the study your quoting?

because i can only think of one, and it in fact pretty much verbatim backed up nick, and recommend that while no one should talk on a cell phone, hands free is the least impactful, and no more distracting than listening to music at a extremely loud level.

also, that study found that hands free is not equivalent to driving with a BAC of over .10

again, this is assuming its the one i saw, which was actually the one referenced when mythbusters did the same thing and found the same results.

The one thing it did find that sounds kind of like what your saying is that emotional calls (read: your angry/distraught) make you focus more on the call than the road, and that those are the most unsafe form of cell phone conversations, but thats the same if your arguing with someone IN the car.

sober and alert > cell phone hands free > cell phone manual > drinking, in that order,  according to the mythbuster tests, not that those are scientific, but they pretty much confirmed the study based on there own tests that copied the study.

There conclusion was that while both driving while on a cell phone and driving at .10 (what they established as drunk) impaired performance, drinking was much worse.

[nickagneta]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

So people who drive should never have a conversation with another person?

Pilots of planes and fighter jets should never have conversations with people on the ground or in the cockpit or with other airplanes or jets?

That makes zero sense?

Could you please reference those studies for me because I think that just might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. If you shouldn't talk on the phone while it is in bluetooth or handless communication mode because the emotional energy needed distracts from your ability to drive as much driving with a BAC at or above .08 then shouldn't they then outlaw driving with another person who may talk to you? Shouldn't they outlaw the fire and police departments ability to communicate with their people in vehicles? The concept is ridiculous. Please, reference those studies for me because that makes just no sense to me.

[guava_wrench]

The cell phone argument is a red herring when talking about legality. Cell phones are relatively new, so legislation may still be behind where it should be. This is irrelevant to the legality of drunk driving. People texting while driving should get similar treatment to drunk drivers, but police don't have a textalizer that can prove the person they stopped was driving erratically due to texting.

The cell phone argument is more interesting when talking about bad decisions while driving. Even having a conversation with a passenger can also be considered problematic. Texting is the worst. But there is a difference from distractions and impairment. For example, someone driving drunk can also take a phone call. They would then have both the distraction and the impairment.

Those who claim that judging Pruitt harshly when the judger takes calls while driving is an interesting point against being judgmental.

[nickagneta]

All I know is that given the DUI and Pruitt's lack of growth in his basketball game, expectations that he will be around here next year should be considered very, very low.

[Mr October]

All I know is that given the DUI and Pruitt's lack of growth in his basketball game, expectations that he will be around here next year should be considered very, very low.

Wait a minute. Hasn't Pruitt become a much better defensive player from last year to this year? How much growth was he supposed to have?

[cordobes]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

So people who drive should never have a conversation with another person?

Pilots of planes and fighter jets should never have conversations with people on the ground or in the cockpit or with other airplanes or jets?

That makes zero sense?

Could you please reference those studies for me because I think that just might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. If you shouldn't talk on the phone while it is in bluetooth or handless communication mode because the emotional energy needed distracts from your ability to drive as much driving with a BAC at or above .08 then shouldn't they then outlaw driving with another person who may talk to you? Shouldn't they outlaw the fire and police departments ability to communicate with their people in vehicles? The concept is ridiculous. Please, reference those studies for me because that makes just no sense to me.

It's not the same. Here's a study which explains why this (that I agree is counter-intuitive) happens:

Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving

Frank A. Drews, Monisha Pasupathi, and David L. Strayer University of Utah

This study examines how conversing with passengers in a vehicle differs from conversing on a cell phone while driving. We compared how well drivers were able to deal with the demands of driving when conversing on a cell phone, conversing with a passenger, and when driving without any distraction. In the conversation conditions, participants were instructed to converse with a friend about past experiences in which their life was threatened. The results show that the number of driving errors was highest in the cell phone condition; in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic, and the production rate of the driver and the complexity of speech of both interlocutors dropped in response to an increasein the demand of the traffic. The results indicate that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surrounding traffic not only becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, but the driving condition also has a direct influenceon the complexity of the conversation, thereby mitigating the potential negative effects of a conversationon driving.

http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/xap144-drews.pdf

The company I work for sponsored one with similar results, but it's not published in english.

You can read plenty of studies about the effect of cell-phone conversation on the driving performance here:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/ (but there are plenty more available from other research centers and authors).

Firemen and policemen generally aren't driving alone, so another person in the vehicle can take care of the communications and interact with the driver, their conversations are mostly extremely short and have the advantage of being trained and driving vehicles others can recognize.

We instituted that our drives can't have conversations via cell phone who last longer than 1 minute and that they must be stricly about professional issues (people tend to get more involved in the conversation when it's about personal matters), otherwise they shall stop the truck to have the conversation.

[fairweatherfan]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

  I'd be inclined to disagree with those studies. They are basically putting talking on a cell phone on par with conversing with someone in the car, which people have been doing since cars were invented. It would also be likely that listening to a car radio would be about 1/2 as distracting as talking on a cell phone.

Salmon is correct - handsfree or not made no discernable difference in impairment.  You can disagree with it but it doesn't change the findings.

Conversing with other people is probably a little impairing, at least relative to being alone, but it isn't the same because cell phones transmit a diluted amount of information relative to a conversation with someone actually present.  Cell phones sound like they're roughly the same as talking in person, but this is because our brains fill in the blanks.  Talking in person conveys much more verbal and non-verbal information, which means it requires less focus to comprehend. Also, conversation usually stops or slows when traffic conditions become trickier, which someone on a cell phone can't determine.

EDIT: Cordobes has a great cite above me on this.

But there is a difference from distractions and impairment. For example, someone driving drunk can also take a phone call. They would then have both the distraction and the impairment.

No, there isn't - anything that distracts you impairs you by definition, as your ability to operate the vehicle safely is reduced.  Your distinction is more between temporary impairment (distraction ie talking) and more persistent impairment (being inebriated)

[BballTim]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

So people who drive should never have a conversation with another person?

Pilots of planes and fighter jets should never have conversations with people on the ground or in the cockpit or with other airplanes or jets?

That makes zero sense?

Could you please reference those studies for me because I think that just might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. If you shouldn't talk on the phone while it is in bluetooth or handless communication mode because the emotional energy needed distracts from your ability to drive as much driving with a BAC at or above .08 then shouldn't they then outlaw driving with another person who may talk to you? Shouldn't they outlaw the fire and police departments ability to communicate with their people in vehicles? The concept is ridiculous. Please, reference those studies for me because that makes just no sense to me.

It's not the same. Here's a study which explains why this (that I agree is counter-intuitive) happens:

Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving

Frank A. Drews, Monisha Pasupathi, and David L. Strayer University of Utah

This study examines how conversing with passengers in a vehicle differs from conversing on a cell phone while driving. We compared how well drivers were able to deal with the demands of driving when conversing on a cell phone, conversing with a passenger, and when driving without any distraction. In the conversation conditions, participants were instructed to converse with a friend about past experiences in which their life was threatened. The results show that the number of driving errors was highest in the cell phone condition; in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic, and the production rate of the driver and the complexity of speech of both interlocutors dropped in response to an increasein the demand of the traffic. The results indicate that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surrounding traffic not only becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, but the driving condition also has a direct influenceon the complexity of the conversation, thereby mitigating the potential negative effects of a conversationon driving.

http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/xap144-drews.pdf

The company I work for sponsored one with similar results, but it's not published in english.

You can read plenty of studies about the effect of cell-phone conversation on the driving performance here:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/ (but there are plenty more available from other research centers and authors).

Firemen and policemen generally aren't driving alone, so another person in the vehicle can take care of the communications and interact with the driver, their conversations are mostly extremely short and have the advantage of being trained and driving vehicles others can recognize.

We instituted that our drives can't have conversations via cell phone who last longer than 1 minute and that they must be stricly about professional issues (people tend to get more involved in the conversation when it's about personal matters), otherwise they shall stop the truck to have the conversation.

  What about the distraction of people looking at a person that they're talking to?

  While there's clearly some merit to what you say (like conversation decreasing in certain situations) it's also true that the fact that the people being studied know that they're being studied affects their behavior.

[crownsy]

All I know is that given the DUI and Pruitt's lack of growth in his basketball game, expectations that he will be around here next year should be considered very, very low.

Wait a minute. Hasn't Pruitt become a much better defensive player from last year to this year? How much growth was he supposed to have?

enough where he can crack the backup PG role without needing 2 players in front of him to go down frist after three years.

 I like gabe, but he's a second rounder who plays ok D and can sometimes hit a shot. he's not exactly an irreplaceable guy.

[Roy Hobbs]

The thing about Pruitt is that his salary will be the same as a guy making the veteran minimum.  Since I believe his deal is non-guaranteed or partially guaranteed, the team will have to determine who can help them more, Pruitt or a veteran.  My guess is, they take the veteran.