News Cut: January 3, 2008 Archive

The cellphone-traffic jam connection

Posted at 8:27 AM on January 3, 2008 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)

A lot of newsies, including me on the Current yesterday, pointed out a study from the University of Utah which claimed that people drive slower while talking on the cellphone.

Anecdotal evidence alone suggests that's true.

Where the study runs afoul is a sweeping -- possibly premature -- conclusion:

The talking drivers took 15 to 19 seconds longer to traverse a 9.2-mile segment of Salt Lake County-simulated freeway, according to the study. That sounds minimal, but the cumulative effects on all drivers are magnified because numerous drivers in real-world conditions likely would be on the phone slowing down others, said Joel Cooper, a doctoral student in psychology.

The press release from the lead author is especially strident:

"At the end of the day, the average person's commute is longer because of that person who is on the cell phone right in front of them," says University of Utah psychology Professor Dave Strayer, leader of the research team. "That SOB on the cell phone is slowing you down and making you late."

SOB? Yikes. This, by the way, is the same person who put out a study that purported to show that a driver on a cellphone operates a car as efficiently as someone blowing .08 -- a drunk driver.

The survey assumes that the proper commute is the one that goes as fast as possible, regardless of all other factors, including safety.

For example, substitute the phrase "driving no faster than the speed limit" for "talking on a cellphone" in the study and you'll see the flawed science involved.

In stop-and-go traffic, because the cellphone driver (probably the most reviled class now that smokers have been banished) is "slower to resume freeway speeds," there also is usually a wider gap between their vehicle and the vehicle ahead of them; some would say a safer distance than the bumper-riding, non-talkers, although an earlier study suggested they're slower to brake.

It also showed that drivers talking on a cellphone are less likely to change lanes, which apparently is considered a bad thing.

Theoretically, acccording to this methodology, the person who zips past you and maintains speed all the way to the stop light ahead, is getting home quicker than you are, even though you and your steady speed end up at the same stoplight ... eventually.

And the research is based only on the results turned in by 36 University of Utah students in a driving simulator. That would be an age group that is already predisposed to being poor drivers. Scientifically, it hasn't been proven that the 36 represent the average driver. So, again scientifically, what can actually be claimed is "36 University of Utah students in a driving simulator drove slower when talking on a cellphone." I have to admit that that's not as much fun to read on the radio.

Assignment: On the way home today, check out the people on cellphones. Are they at the front of the jam? How many car lengths behind the people in front? And report back.here. Do not type while driving, however.

Comment on this post

Reckless

Posted at 11:34 AM on January 3, 2008 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)

Let's say you're a security guard in a St. Paul housing complex and one night (or day), you chase down and apprehend a suspected thief in the driver's seat of a stolen car. While removing him, your gun goes off, paralyzing him. Are you guilty of a crime?

A district court in Minnesota says "yes." Today the Minnesota Supreme Court said not.... exactly.

This is the case of Tim Engle and it happened in November 2003. The Supreme Court sent it back to District Court today over the definition of the word "reckless," as used in state law regarding "reckless discharge of a firearm." (Read the opinion here.)

The Supreme Court ruled that "reckless" in driving cases (that is, an act that a person knows or should have known puts others in harm's way) is different from "reckless" in cases like this, determining that "a person is said to act recklessly when he or she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that an injury will occur, or when his or her action is grossly heedless of consequences."

The case is a good example of how the application of the law -- and a man's future -- can hinge on the definition of a single word.

Comment on this post

Ventura and the CIA

Posted at 2:33 PM on January 3, 2008 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)

Seriously, now: who didn't chuckle just a bit when this nugget was excerpted from former Gov. Jesse Ventura's forthcoming book in this morning's Pioneer Press.

Shortly after he took office in 1999, he was escorted to a state Capitol conference room where 23 CIA agents were waiting. He writes that they grilled him about how he campaigned and won the election. "In short, how had the independent wrestler candidate pulled this off?"

He said he learned "there is a CIA operative inside every state government. ... In Minnesota, this person was at a deputy commissioner level, fairly high up."

It turns out, he was right. Who says? The CIA.

MPR reporter Tim Pugmire called the CIA to verify the story and got back this e-mail:

Tim,
Thanks for your call. With respect to your questions about Gov.
Ventura's references to the CIA in his new book, you can use the quoted portions that follow from me, in name, as a CIA spokesman:

With respect to his reference to a meeting that occurred shortly after he took office in 1999:

"On occasion CIA officers meet with senior state government officials, as they did in this case, to discuss issues of mutual interest."

With respect to his statement about CIA officers in state governments:

"I wouldn't think of CIA officers as being in state governments.
They're federal employees."

Best wishes,
George Little
CIA Office of Public Affairs

In other words: the goose flies north at midnight.

Tim called back to try to clarify such points as (a) were there really 23 agents involved and (b) huh? He has not heard back.

There's also a call in to Gov. Tim Pawlenty to find out if it's routine that a deputy commissioner in state government might be a CIA agent.

(Photo: Carlo Allegri, Getty Images)

Comment on this post

Citizen journalists tackle Iowa

Posted at 2:34 PM on January 3, 2008 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)

It's difficult for mainstream media folks to discuss citizen journalism without falling into the "us against them" trap. We are so conditioned to defining journalism as "it's what we do," that when someone or something comes along that clearly isn't doing what we do, the reaction is to say it's also not journalism. Maybe. Maybe not.

But among the more impressive organizations in this citizen journalism space is The UpTake, a Minnesota-based group which is training citizen journalists. The site is to provide live Internet video during the caucuses.

"We have been recruiting in Iowa since our inception this summer. We recruited a group of native Iowans who are capturing their experiences as the campaign trail comes to an end and will be capturing their experiences at caucuses," said Noah Kunin, director of UpTake. "Our advantage is our speed and our flexibility to provide unfiltered content."

Kunin says it's a shoestring budget -- under $600 -- for the group, which consists of "unpaid people with day jobs."

And what has he found so far in Iowa? A heavily controlled state that makes it tough to capture the "real Iowa."

"The media wants the real story, but they structure themselves in such a way that puts them away from the real story... the real island. (The campaigns want to) utterly and completely lock down anyone who's even nominally involved with the campaigns," he says. "Volunteers here are actually credentialed, they have volunteer badges, so you know who they are. But if you try to talk to them, they will not talk to you. They have all been indoctrinated not to talk to any media whatsoever. And so there's a co-construction between the campaigns and the media that makes it very difficult to cover that 'real island' vibe. Everyone who has not already been locked down by the campaigns, isn't very interested in politics anyway and doesn't really want to talk to you."

Not all attempts to get around that are entirely successful. One piece running today shows a mainstream media (dubbed "corporate media") camera crew more interested in shooting a picture of volunteers on telephones -- presumably, that was their assignment from their boss -- than protesters of the Iraq war at the Obama storefront. "Don't you care about the dead in Iraq?" the citizen journalist asks. "I don't care," the camera person responds.

"With that one, I was not the editor on it so I can't speak directly to it," Kunin said. "We decided that was, while certainly subjective, it was a valid viewpoint and it encapsulated a lot of the opinions we're seeing out there... in the blogosphere, on the reactions to the media and the Obama campaign... on his perceived moved to the center. Where I want to go with this, is moving toward the idea of a conversation. When a piece like that goes up, it's easy to respond to it...so people can see the entire spectrum of conversation."

Listen to the interview with Noah Kunin. (mp3 16:54)

Comment on this post

The placebo effect

Posted at 5:05 PM on January 3, 2008 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)

Is it unethical for a doctor to prescribe a placebo to you?

It may happen more often than we think, according to a study out today.

A University of Chicago research team sent surveys about placebo use to 466 internists at the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the University of Illinois -- Chicago. Half of the recipients responded, and 45 percent of the respondents reported giving a patient a placebo at least once during their years of practice.

Only 4 percent of the doctors told their patients that the pills -- usually sugar pills -- were worthless.

"I think this shows that it strikes a chord among physicians. We may underestimate the body's natural healing potential," said Rachel Sherman, a medical student at the University of Chicago, whose study was published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The use of a placebo in medical studies is fairly common. But this study focuses on regular clinical use.

There's one other health-related story today: The Centers for Disease Control reports for the first time, confirmation of the suspicion that you can get norovirus -- stomach flu -- from a computer keyboard or mouse.

Comment on this post