Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My mom prefers trains over buses because she can read without getting motion sick on a train but not a bus. I haven't heard anyone else say that, though trains are often smoother.
I took many long trips on trains in Europe, and could read without a problem. I never tried reading on the bus, but I can't use my smartphone on the bus for long without getting a bit ill. It's even worse in the car. I can look at my phone just long enough to check the time, before I have to put it away.
And for those of us who get motion sickness simply by being on a train, bus, or streetcar? That public transportation is a complete waste of time, made incredibly miserable.
Not sure what that had to do with my comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
The brain can't do two higher functions at once. It can't even kinda do two of those at once. So, it splits attention between the two. If you're driving, you're not paying attention to the audio book except when you're not paying attention to driving.
The purpose of my response is to ask you what makes you qualified to make these statement. Reading an article on "Slate" doesn't cut it, for example. Also, what makes you think listening to an audio book is a high function?
Do you drive in total silence?
Second question first. Yes, sometimes I do, sometimes because I feel like not listening to NPR or music, sometimes because I don't need background noise I'm not going to pay attention to, and doubly so if the driving specifically requires my attention.
But, to your first point, qualifications only arise in discussions when one party doubts the other's argument, but have no satisfactory counterpoint. If the argument is fully formed, then the qualifications of the person making that argument are irrelevant to that argument.
As to your question on audiobooks, specifically, let's talk about books in general. If we are reading in a comprehensive way, regardless of the subject, we can't do another active function, such as a solve a math problem or navigate a maze, at the same time. At best, all we can do is switch between the two, but this has immediately degrading effects on both speed and accuracy.
Well, audiobooks are the same way. If one's brain is processing the material, not just letting it wash over you, then you are actively engaged in that activity and cannot be actively engaged in another. In our case, the other would be driving. And this has been my consistent point throughout.
What I haven't said, quite explicitly, is that one cannot do something and drive, but I have said that one cannot be attentive to that something and also to driving.
We've come a long way from the OP, but I'll nonetheless say that I have no problem with listening to audiobooks or talking on the phone (via radio bluetooth) while driving.
Another reason to take the train. The epidemic of distracted driving. Too many fools not paying attention to their driving because they are texting, yakking on the phone, listening to an audio book, playing with their computer or whatever. They are making the roads more dangerous for everyone. People should be 100% focused on their driving not listening to some cheesy romance or horror novel or playing with their iphone.
I'm more interested in the economic development argument. Portland commissioned a study that said that the economic development effects of its streetcar were inconclusive. If that's the case, then how can the streetcar be cited as an economic development tool?
I think it's a case of perception trumping reality. The public perceives street cars to be tools of economic development because they are so very visible, whereas buses, because of their sheer abundance, are seen as too mundane to be an effective tool. If that's the case, it's mildly ironic given that buses, given their numbers, seem to be the more successful "species."
Yeah, why not just sit in your house all day and not go outside at all because of inherent risks in just stepping outside the door, or hell, even in the house! C'mon dude, yeah people can be complete IDIOTS on the road, just today I saw a guy waiting at a red light reading the newspaper! But getting out on the roads and driving as defensively as possible, you can greatly lessen the risk of becoming entangled in an accident due to someone else's negligence. Sure there's always that possibility that something could happen, but by being cautious, observant, vigilant and using proper judgement of assuming that the guy in front of you who may stop short and turn left with no signal because he's on the phone....probably will stop short and make a left with no signal while he's on the phone...and being aware of this and other surroundings so that you can take appropriate reactionary measures and possibly prevent a collision that could have been very well someone else's fault, and most importantly, not getting totally worked up all the time about how stupid people are on the road...and you can actually enjoy using a car for transportation, at least in my opinion. The sacrifice of occasional sanity in exchange for the freedom and mobility that driving offers people, totally worth it in my opinion...and likely in a LOT of other people's as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
