Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - John-Ha

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
You accused me of having a low opinion of other forum members and insinuated that I was of low intelligence. Bang on with the first assertion but I find the second offensive. I think you should be shot in front of your family banned.  :P

If you are going to quote me, then at least have the decency to quote me correctly.  I said "I live in a world where intelligent people respect facts, where they listen to and understand arguments, where they evaluate what new things they learn, and where they change their behaviour according to the new knowledge they have. "  I did not mention your name but if the cap fits wear it.

2
You've got that wrong too, John. You're a dickhead, I'm not.  :)
Post reported to a moderator for a ruling on whether calling a fellow member "a dickhead" is acceptable.
Good luck with that  ;D

Forum guidelines state:

Members being offensive to other members will not be tolerated. Offensive or abusive public threads or private messages will be looked in to and appropriate action taken by the Moderators.

I await their decision.

3
You've got that wrong too, John. You're a dickhead, I'm not.  :)
Post reported to a moderator for a ruling on whether calling a fellow member "a dickhead" is acceptable.

4
I would suggest that this thread has had no impact whatsoever on anyone who uses a hands free whilst driving. Why would it?
I think that reflects your rather low opinion of the type of person on the forum. 

I live in a world where intelligent people respect facts, where they listen to and understand arguments, where they evaluate what new things they learn, and where they change their behaviour according to the new knowledge they have. 

5
What difference does any of this make?

Hopefully those who followed the argument will now accept that using even hands free mobile phones while driving is somewhat similar to driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol. 

People will continue as they have, regardless of.....well.....anything really. Short of putting a signal blocker in every car to stop them, folk will use their phones.

Most now respect the alcohol limit and don't drive while drunk but many use phones which is illogical as the effects seem to be remarkably similar.  One can only hope that once people realise this they will stop doing so. 

If the discussion has caused members to rethink their phone use while driving it has been well worth it.

6
If that report was true to life, all the police officers that I know who have to constantly use phone and radio comms when on normal road patrol duties, let alone on blue's and two's, driving at speed, would be constantly crashing due to being "under the influence" of something akin to having had a few pints. Also the Advanced traffic officers who are trained to tactical pursuit level, using comms whilst driving at very high speeds, would certainly be having a constant stream of crashes if that report was true.

Lizzie
 
I think you have misunderstood the point  8) as drunk drivers are not "constantly crashing" either!  The reports identify the effect of using a phone and show it is similar, and in many cases worse, than driving at 80mg/100ml.  I think all will agree that drunk drivers are at greater risk of accident - so are those using mobile phones.

To use the reports as a blanket judgement that using phones is as dangerous as driving whilst "under the influence" is just plain stupid and wrong.  ;)

Lizzie

Unfortunately I think you are misquoting me and then saying the misquote is incorrect.  My original comment was "Even using a hands free phone is somewhat similar to being on the alcohol limit." and I objected when Andy B called me a liar.  He isn't man enough to apologise.

There are many similar reports.  For example the Institute of Advanced Motorists commissioned research in 2012 which showed:
  • when sending and receiving messages through Facebook reaction times were slowed by 37.6% and participants were unable to respond as quickly to the car in front changing speed gradually;
  • texting slowed reaction times by 37.4%;
  • hands free mobile phone usage slowed reaction times by 26.5%;
  • alcohol above the driving limit in England and Wales but below 100mg per 100ml blood slowed reaction times by 6-15%;
  • These figures show that even hands free conversations can be more dangerous than driving with alcohol in the system.
The other report I cited originally was A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver.  Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006) Human factors, 48, 381-391 It concluded:
  • Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk.
  • Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. “Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly” from undistracted drivers, the researchers write. [None rear-ended the pace car]
Everyone apart from me in this thread is giving their personal opinions and they are welcome to have them.  Some people are honestly of the opinion the earth is flat and they shout down anyone who contradicts them (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Society).  I think we will all agree they are cranks.  As an aside I loved the "proof" given by the guy who flew thousands of miles with a spirit level on his lap and concluded that, as the level showed horizontal at both the start and end of the journey, this was absolute proof the earth was flat.

No-one has cited anything, other than their opinion, to contradict what I stated.  So, the question remains:

Should I believe opinions from people who have not done any research in the matter and who are dragging up their personal prejudices and publishing them in the Omega Owners Forum General Discussion Area?  Andy B was unable to substantiate his opinion when asked.

Or should I believe well qualified, doctorate level scientists and psychologists who have conducted actual experiments across the world with drivers in simulators and who have published their findings in peer-reviewed papers in internationally recognised journals?

I know whom I choose to believe.

7
As per my pm reply ..... in part, as I've only skimmed through it, the 'conversation' at TRRL was more of a test than a conversation.
You get the likes of BRAKE coming out with drivel half the time re road safety.

That's my first & final reply.
So, Andy B, I think all can see that your accusation that I was talking "13ollocks" was completely unwarranted and that you cannot substantiate it in any way.

When I am proved so convincingly wrong as you have been I admit it and learn from it. 

An apology would be nice but I doubt it will be forthcoming as it takes a big man to admit in public that he was wrong.

8
In a recent thread I stated “Even using a hands free phone is somewhat similar to being on the alcohol limit.” 
Andy B replied “13ollocks”. 
When I asked Andy B “Could you please substantiate your comment.”, citing two research papers which supported my position, he responded “No .... Lies, damned lies & statistics.”  The thread was subsequently locked so I sent Andy B a PM with the web address so he could download the report for himself and said I would start a new discussion. 

One report I cited is by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and is entitled How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259258482_How_Dangerous_is_Driving_with_a_Mobile_Phone_Benchmarking_the_Impairment_to_Alcohol). 

I took this from the report Executive Summary and sorted and bulleted the points.  Everything is a direct quote from the report.

This study aimed to quantify the impairment from Handsfree and Hand-held phone conversations in relation to the decline in driving performance caused by alcohol impairment. 

Using a phone is worse than driving with 80mg/ml alcohol
  • … drivers had significantly poorer speed control when using the Hand-held phone than during the other three conditions [including driving with 80 mg/100ml].
  • Reaction times were significantly slower for drivers using phones in comparison to when they had alcohol. 
  • Results showed a tendency for drivers to slow down when talking on Hand-held or Hands-free phones, even when they were specifically instructed to maintain a set speed. [unable to follow instructions] .
  • … drivers missed significantly more warnings when they were using a phone.
  • There was [sic] also significantly fewer warnings missed by the drivers when they were on alcohol in comparison to when they were using the Hands-free phones. [ie even hands free is worse than driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol]
  • The phone drivers were also responding to the wrong warnings more often than the alcohol drivers (false alarms).
  • From the subjective mental effort ratings participants made immediately after driving each route, it was clear that they found driving while using a Hand-held phone to be the most difficult.
  • … certain aspects of driving performance are impaired more by using a phone than by having a blood alcohol level at the legal limit (80mg/ 100ml)
Driving with 80mg/ml alcohol is worse than using a phone
  • ... drivers drove faster than normal when under the influence of alcohol. [and unable to follow instructions]
  • When drivers were under the influence of alcohol, they were significantly worse at driving smoothly (standard deviation of lane position) than during the other three conditions.
It is concluded that driving behaviour while talking on a phone is not only worse than normal driving, it can also be described as dangerous.

Although using phones while driving ... can be considered as irresponsible and dangerous, this behaviour is common. Drivers need to be strongly discouraged from engaging in any phone use while behind the wheel.

I fail to see why that is "13ollocks" but perhaps Andy B will join the discussion and tell us why he believes it is "13ollocks"

9
General Discussion Area / Re: This will be fun 😆
« on: 17 November 2019, 23:36:10 »
No ....

Lies, damned lies & statistics.

Well I guess I have to choose who to believe. 

Should I believe a group of scientists all probably educated to doctoral level who were commissioned by the UK Transport and Road Research Laboratory to do some research and who wrote a peer reviewed report on their findings.

Or should I choose to believe you, who probably has no more that a pass in CSE Woodwork to your name?  Someone who has not read the reports but says they are rubbish.  Someone who cannot enter into a discussion about the subject because he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject and because he lacks the capability to think logically so all he can do is cuss and say clichés (look it up) like "Lies, damned lies & (it's spelled AND) statistics" as though that actually means something. 

10
General Discussion Area / Re: This will be fun 😆
« on: 17 November 2019, 22:54:15 »
Absolute 13ollocks!
Could you please substantiate your comment.

I will substantiate my comment with two scientific papers which examined the issue.

Mobile phone use and drink driving

The comparison of mobile phones with alcohol impairment continues to attract researchers because of the already established thresholds and risks for alcohol impairment. In 2002, a study by the Transport Research Laboratory in the UK found that while driving while intoxicated is clearly impaired, certain aspects of driving performance are even more impaired by mobile phone use. Burns, P. C., Parkes, A., Burton, S., Smith, R. K., & Burch, D. (2002). How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol. Crowthorne.: Transport Research Laboratory.

A similar study in 2006 that mobile-phone drivers may exhibit greater impairments than intoxicated drivers. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human factors, 48, 381-391.

11
General Discussion Area / Re: This will be fun 😆
« on: 17 November 2019, 19:47:35 »
I still can't see the difference between talking to a passenger & talking to someone somewhere else.
The big difference is that a passenger is aware of what is happening on the road and stops talking when you need to pay more attention.  Someone on the phone doesn't.

Even using a hands free phone is somewhat similar to being on the alcohol limit.

12
General Discussion Area / Re: More trees
« on: 17 November 2019, 14:25:52 »
Im willing to fell it myself, onto the middle of the allotments obviously
Get a professional in.  They cut it down from the top and nothing longer than a foot or two hits the ground.

13
See Damaged rear height sensor at http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=143453.msg1874497#msg1874497
and
Xenon light front suspension height sensor at http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=143226.0
for how to repair the sensor.

14
General Discussion Area / Re: BT Broadband Fight
« on: 01 July 2019, 13:35:12 »
Lizzie

The problem ISPs have is that the speed you get is dependent on the cable-run distance of your router from the green cabinet in the street.  It all works like this for copper wires (fibre is probably similar but I don't know):

1  The electronics in the green cabinet can run up to about 100 Mb/sec.

2  If you live next door to the cabinet you can get 100 Mb/sec.  You get the following speeds where the left is from the Ofcom 2014 report and the right from increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk:

250m  65 Mb/s    77 Mb/s
500m  38 Mb/s    62 Mb/s
750m  30 Mb/s    40 Mb/s
1km    25 Mb/s    28 Mb/s
2km    12 Mb/s    16 Mb/s

Note this is the cable run distance and cables usually follow the roads.  I live 750 cable-metres from my green cabinet and BT gave me 39 Mb/s.

3.  When the electronics in the cabinet starts working it does so at a low speed because it does not know how distant you are.  It then keeps upping the speed until too many errors occur.  It then backs off the speed a bit.  It continuously monitors the line for errors and continuously adapts to the fastest possible speed.

4  If the ISP sells you a 38 Mb/s package the ISP puts a limit on the electronics saying "Don't go above 38 Mb/s even if it is possible because this person is paying for 38 Mb/s".  This limit is called the IP Profile for your line.  First level support don't know about it - when it got wrongly set for me (at 0.1 Mb/s!!) I had to go to managers to get it fixed.

So, if you are not getting what you think you should be getting, you need to check each factor.

5.  Be very careful with broadband filters.  If you connect them up incorrectly it can have the effect of randomly disconnecting the internet.  The best method is to use a "BT socket with integrated filter" as the master socket.

15
Omega General Help / Re: Pas pipe advice needed
« on: 25 June 2019, 12:48:16 »
The same pipe has gone on my 2.2 TDI.  The garage said it was no longer available and will be replacing it with generic pipe.
Correction. 

The pipe is metal and they tried cutting out the corroded bit and replacing it with braided hose but the hose burst.  They then fitted in a short section of copper pipe.

That being said Mrs Google quickly found flexible pipe capable of withstanding 3250 psi (224 bar) - see High Pressure Flexible Hose - annular

Pages: [1] 2 3

Page created in 0.192 seconds with 20 queries.