Chester Press

Robo Traffic

Distracted drivers are not at fault, according to new research. The Robotic Automotive Administration yesterday announced that car manufacturers are responsible for the traffic and injuries caused by distracted drivers, not the drivers themselves.

“It’s simple, really. Humans are designed to talk, to look, to interact for short periods of time. They aren’t designed to drive long distances in complicated environments in sub-par conditions. They get tired. They get emotional. So why are we blaming the human when they feel the need to check their social media?” says the RAA release, “If we give a knife to a toddler, can we blame him if he cuts himself?”

Vehicle technology, the report says, has improved in areas of efficiency and comfort, but it has failed to keep up with the trend of mobile phones and social media. The report goes on to cite the lack of a push from car manufacturers to develop automated cars. While it makes no absolute claims, it does imply that they have their own agenda for keeping people behind the wheel.

“We cannot blame social media. We cannot blame communication technology. Above all, we cannot blame the user. We have the capability (to created automated vehicles). We have cameras and sensors, actuators and high speed processors, navigation and traffic warnings. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot see automated cars on the road, which would alleviate congestion, reduce the number of serious incidents and improve the quality of life of all commuters.”

Dial Away Your Fat

Forget diet and exercise and embrace your mobile phone. Recent studies have shown that having a digital phone in our back pocket can help you burn off more fat, even when you’re not moving.

Arman Raseekasingha of Balmain Research has studied the effects of mobile phone proximity to adipose tissue.

“We concentrated our efforts where the phone was most likely to be in contact based upon common usage. This is the chest area and the rump area. There was a measurable difference in the quantity of fat cells between those sides that had a mobile phone in proximity,” he says, “In most cases it’s not visible to the naked eye. There are some exceptions. We have documented several samples where the breast and rump tissue is obviously asymmetric, and in each case the person has chronic exposure to a mobile phone on the smaller side.”

He says possible explanations for the increased loss of fatty tissue around areas exposed to mobile phones include an increased localised temperature, or perhaps that there is a tendency for the phone to be placed on the person’s natural dominant side. When asked whether cell phone radiation could be the answer, he replied, “Absolutely not.”

“We cannot talk about causality at this stage. These findings show a correlation,” he says, “There is no cause for alarm. There is also no reason to base a law suit on these findings: Lopsided breasts or posterior have more to do with diet and genetics than exposure to a mobile phone device.”