Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 11, 2:16�am, "JB" wrote:
Patty Holding a cell phone to your ear keeps you from being able to turn your head to check your blind spots. �This is the #1 thing I watch out for when I see another driver is on the phone and it has saved me again and again. �A mic, you can just drop in your lap when you need to. �Most people I have seen driving with hands-free systems and voice recognition dialing on their cell phones drive no worse than they normally do. That's part of it all right. Another factor is that holding a cell phone has the person driving one-handed all the time. But the biggest difference is psychological. Telephone conversations tend to be two-way (duplex), radio is almost always one-way, and the distraction level is very different. Aside from that, people who have problems with keeping their attention span primarily to the driving, shouldn't drive. That's true, but who decides such things? Almost all of the bad drivers I know think they are good drivers! �You don't have to look at the mic, so it is actually potentially safer than having a passenger in the car. You don't have to look at the passengers while driving, either. I sure don't. It is that simple. �Would you outlaw passengers? � Some of them! (Actually, if a certain passenger is a distraction, I pull over). This always seems to be goal of any discussions like this. Some people seem to be intent on outlawing every thing that somebody else does because they know they can't do it right themselves. �The insurance companies would have nothing to do if people got their license pulled for getting in wrecks rather than outlawing everyone else. I disagree. The problem is that too many people are poor judges of how well they can do something. Particularly in real-life situations. After an accident is too late to do prevention. Pulling the license doesn't bring back the dead or instantly heal the injured. (And some folks will simply drive without the license!) Where I work, we have a saying: "The safety book is written in blood". I have seen boatloads of data that gets overturned by boatloads of different data all the time. Sure. But we have to go with the data we've got, and that data proves over and over that cell phone use while driving seriously reduces driving skills. If someone did a lot of testing, they could probably find certain individuals whose driving skills with an illegal blood alcohol level were better than those of certain other individuals who were stone cold sober. IOW, exceptions that prove the rule. But the law has to be written and applied the same for everyone. �I can tell you that "texting" and typing on a computer keyboard certainly needs to be the job of the co-pilot. Of course! And you would think that everyone would have the common sense to know that. But they don't. That's the real issue - people's lack of self-awareness, good judgement and common sense. Maybe we can't legislate those things, but we can try to prevent some of the obvious bad results. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() In article , Steve Bonine wrote: But for the ARRL to defend the right of hams to distract themselves based on emergency communication is not logical. If they want to make the case that operating a ham radio is sufficiently different than using a cell phone that such laws should not apply, I still wouldn't agree but at least the premise would be logical. But they did: that article discussed the difference between simplex (ham radio) and duplex (cell phone) operation. I agree with them that that's a defensible difference. It also ties into the comparison with having a passenger in the car. If the passenger is an adult, they will likely notice when the driver is in a tricky situation and stop talking. That's certainly what I do. I'll stop talking in the middle of a sentence if I see that the driver has to deal with some traffic that has suddenly bunched up, or some other issue. A person on the other end of a cell phone can't see what's happening and know to stop talking. I actually have a non-driving example of this. A few years ago, I was on the phone (with someone in Newington, coincidentally!) on a day when we had had a small earthquake. Another one struck while the other person was talking. I asked her to hang on, because I needed to gauge whether it was big enough that I needed to move away from my desk. But she, of course, had no idea that anything was happening and didn't hear my first couple of requests to hold the conversation. So I was distracted from dealing with the actual situation by trying to get the attention of the person on the other end of the phone. Now, had I been in a car and some dangerous situation had suddenly arisen, I would have simply dropped the phone. But I still think this points to the greater distraction of phone conversations during local "emergencies." And I think it's not as much of an issue with simplex conversations. Patty N6BIS |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Patty Winter" wrote in message
... In article , Steve Bonine wrote: But for the ARRL to defend the right of hams to distract themselves based on emergency communication is not logical. If they want to make the case that operating a ham radio is sufficiently different than using a cell phone that such laws should not apply, I still wouldn't agree but at least the premise would be logical. But they did: that article discussed the difference between simplex (ham radio) and duplex (cell phone) operation. I agree with them that that's a defensible difference. It also ties into the comparison with having a passenger in the car. If the passenger is an adult, they will likely notice when the driver is in a tricky situation and stop talking. That's certainly what I do. I'll stop talking in the middle of a sentence if I see that the driver has to deal with some traffic that has suddenly bunched up, or some other issue. A person on the other end of a cell phone can't see what's happening and know to stop talking. I actually have a non-driving example of this. A few years ago, I was on the phone (with someone in Newington, coincidentally!) on a day when we had had a small earthquake. Another one struck while the other person was talking. I asked her to hang on, because I needed to gauge whether it was big enough that I needed to move away from my desk. But she, of course, had no idea that anything was happening and didn't hear my first couple of requests to hold the conversation. So I was distracted from dealing with the actual situation by trying to get the attention of the person on the other end of the phone. Now, had I been in a car and some dangerous situation had suddenly arisen, I would have simply dropped the phone. But I still think this points to the greater distraction of phone conversations during local "emergencies." And I think it's not as much of an issue with simplex conversations. Patty N6BIS This is the essence of dealing with anything else in the cockpit. It all has to be secondary to what is going on "out there". If that mindset isn't drilled, trained, cultivated or however you get that unfailingly into the brain, you have no business on the road because no amount of excuses or inanimate objects we can come up with to blame or outlaw can make up for a tragedy. In my own experience, anything that takes more than 2 seconds of my eyes off the road is not worth doing on the road, and if there aren't 2 seconds to spare, it can wait. I can count to 2 without letting my mind wander to Strawberry Fields Forever, and I haven't lost any friends by asking them to repeat themselves. |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Patty Winter wrote:
In article , Steve Bonine wrote: But for the ARRL to defend the right of hams to distract themselves based on emergency communication is not logical. If they want to make the case that operating a ham radio is sufficiently different than using a cell phone that such laws should not apply, I still wouldn't agree but at least the premise would be logical. But they did: that article discussed the difference between simplex (ham radio) and duplex (cell phone) operation. I agree with them that that's a defensible difference. The quote from Sumner is, "Simplex, two-way radio operation is simply different than duplex, cell phone use. Two-way radio operation in moving vehicles has been going on for decades without highway safety being an issue. The fact that cell phones have come along does not change that." It's "simply different"? What's inside that cell phone? A two-way radio. In both cases you've got two people talking to each other. If you compared the conversational style between two hams chatting on two meters and the same two people chatting on a cell phone, you wouldn't see much difference. Maybe years ago when one party would expound for 9.9 minutes and then hand it over to the other for his 9.9 minutes there was more difference, but even then you still had distraction. As for this argument that there was never an issue before, how do we know this? How much has the population of vehicles capable of two-way radio communication grown since the cell phone came along? From perhaps ..1% to 80%? I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I know it's a huge difference. So now we're seeing the problem. Is this because two-way radio operation is safe, but bundle the radio into a cell phone and it becomes deadly? I don't think so; I think it's the population increase. The bottom line is that using a ham radio transceiver while driving is distracting. Depending on what the operator is doing, it can be less distracting than using a cell phone, or a whole lot more distracting. I have seen hams operate HF while driving, including changing bands, picking a new frequency, and adjusting the tuning on both the transmitter and antenna, and that is absolutely more distracting than talking on a cell phone. I've also observed a fair number of people whose idea of operating mobile is to use their HT in the car. A license from the FCC does not imbue special distraction-avoiding skill. If limiting cell phone use while driving is A Good Thing, then the same should apply to use of ham radio. 73, Steve KB9X |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 11, 1:27�pm, wrote:
I guess I think the problem is we're concentrating too much on preventing behaviors that *might* lead to dangerous activity and not enough on preventing the dangerous activity itself. For example (bear with me here!) DUI is not in itself dangerous. Yes, it is. Here's why: First, one of the prime properties of drinking ethanol is behavorial disinhibition - meaning that a person's restraint and judgement tend to be impaired. That makes it more likely they will do something dangerous than if they were sober. (Some might say that behavioral disinhibition is a prime reason to drink ethanol, but that's a different discussion...) Second, another of the prime properties of drinking ethanol is that it slows down reaction time and impairs driving skills and coordination. This is readily demonstrated by having a person drive a test route sober and then with varying blood alcohol levels. The result is that a driving situation in which a sober person would stop in time, swerve to avoid an obstacle, etc., can turn into an accident simply because the person's reactions and skills are impaired. This is true even if the person doesn't speed, doesn't run red lights, etc. Heck, on any given night the vast majority of drunks on the road get home without harming anyone or anything. Yes, they do. But that doesn't prove DUI isn't dangerous. The vast majority of people who do all sorts of dangerous driving things, like running a stop sign, get away with it simply because all the conditions for a disaster aren't there at the same time. The dangerous activity is running red lights, driving way too fast, moving out of your lane without regard for the presence of other vehicles, etc... That depends on how we define "dangerous". Most of those activities are only dangerous if other conditions are present. For example, if there are no other cars present, what's the danger of running a red light? Of course, being drunk makes you FAR, FAR more likely to commit one of these dangerous activities. Exactly! And that alone makes DWI dangerous, at least by some definitions. But if your mom gets run over by someone blowing through a red light at 30 over the limit, should that person get off more lightly because they were sober and just thought they were too important to obey traffic signals? It depends on the case. Intent is a major factor in determining whether an action is a crime, and how severe a crime it is. Because we know that DWI unnecessarily increases the risk of a tragedy, DWI itself becomes a crime. For example, suppose A shoots B and B dies. A's intent could be the difference between self-defense and first-degree murder. IMHO we should be spending more resources patrolling our roads and stopping those who are actually doing dangerous things, *regardless* of why they're doing it -- and stop diverting those resources to people who are doing things that *might* be dangerous. Well, I don't know about where you are, but around here, I see far more resources allocated to stopping dangerous behaviors (speeding, running red lights, failing to signal, following too closely, etc.) than to trying to find DWIs. The DWIs I do know about in this area are usually the result of a traffic stop for another reason (police see somebody blow through a red light, they pull the car over, turns out the driver has had too many too recently. Driver gets charged with both the red light violation and the DWI.) Maybe it's different where you are. -- Here's an analogy: Here in PA we have annual auto safety inspections. One of the things checked is tire wear; if your tires are down to a certain point, they have to be replaced. If you're stopped with below-wear-limit tires, you can get a ticket. But in most situations worn-down tires aren't any more dangerous than new ones. The difference only matters in wet, snow, ice and high-speed conditions. Yet even if it's a dry summer day and you're driving slow, you can get a ticket for worn-out tires because of the *potential* hazard if it should rain or you take the car on the freeway. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/08/09 14:47, KØHB wrote:
"Jeff Davis" wrote in message ... No matter your position on the mobile issue, does it seem to you that by taking such a stand the ARRL is exposing itself to a boatload of liability the first time a mobile operating radio amateur plows into someone on the Interstate and the amateur operation is cited as a primary cause for the accident? I don't think ARRL would be liable for the action of any individual ham. But I do believe two things: 1) Operating an amateur radio rig while driving is every much a distraction as talking on a cell phone. 2) Amateur radio operators should not be eligible for "exemptions" not available to the general public. I don't know how it is generally in the US, but here in the UK there is a specific law prohibiting the use of *hand held* phones whilst driving. This law does *not* apply where hands-free equipment is in use, as long as the phone itself is fixed in a cradle and not lying around loose somewhere. It also applies *solely* to phones and *not* to any other form of radio communications, including two-way radio (of any type, business radio or amateur, CB etc.) So I can quite legally use a hand-held microphone on 2m but not a hand-held phone. Of course the police could quite easily charge me with the offence of driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving, but for some reason they saw fit to introduce a law banning hand-held phones. 73 Ivor G6URP |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/08/09 14:13, Steve Bonine wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote: He was operating CW with a key strapped to his thigh -- while driving to work. I like ham radio, and I like that guy ... but I don't want him operating a moving vehicle anywhere within a hundred miles of me or my family... even when all else fails... You have captured the essence of my feelings in two sentences. There is a body of reliable data that indicates that distraction during driving causes accidents, no matter what is causing the distraction. It is obvious that operating a ham radio causes distraction. You can argue that the amount of distraction depends on what you're doing, or that similar distraction is caused in other services like public safety or land mobile, but the fact remains that operating a ham radio while driving increases the probability that you'll have an accident. Does it increase the probability enough to lump it in with cell phone use and discourage the behavior by passing laws? I think that it does; I recognize that there are dissenting opinions. But for the ARRL to defend the right of hams to distract themselves based on emergency communication is not logical. If they want to make the case that operating a ham radio is sufficiently different than using a cell phone that such laws should not apply, I still wouldn't agree but at least the premise would be logical. I have seen several close calls related to people chattering away on cell phones while driving. I am convinced that the issue of distracted drivers having accidents is real, and I support laws that prohibit that behavior because I believe it to be dangerous both to the person who is doing it and to me. I don't buy that operating a ham radio is sufficiently less distracting that it should be exempted. 73, Steve KB9X If you want distraction, try driving a double deck bus at school chucking out time. I guarantee that 70+ screaming kids is *far* more distracting than *any* phone call or radio conversation..!! 73 Ivor G6URP |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bert Hyman wrote:
In Steve Bonine wrote: It's "simply different"? Simplex. Duplex. Simply different. Yes, certainly simplex and duplex are different. But what the ARRL is saying is that there is a fundamental difference between communicating using mobile radio and communicating using a cell phone. Sumner is using the terms "simplex" and "duplex" to describe this. Since "simplex" and "duplex" are not common words generally used by the public, I conclude that he has picked them primarily to control the discussion. Rather than admit that they don't understand what the words mean, many people will just say, "Sure". The issue is distraction to a driver. It makes no difference whether you can hear the other person while you're talking. Whether you're using a cell phone or a mobile radio, you're having a conversation with another person and fiddling with the actual equipment -- flipping open a cell phone to answer a call, or changing the frequency on the ham transceiver. In fact, there are a whole lot more buttons to push and potential distractions with the transceiver than with the cell phone. If cell phone use while driving is an activity that needs to be discouraged, then mobile radio operation while driving should also be discouraged because they both result in distraction. To say, "The driver isn't distracted because he can't hear the other person while he's talking" is not logical. Saying it using fancy words like "simplex" and "duplex" does not make it more valid. 73, Steve KB9X |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
driving at night | CB | |||
[RAC-Bulletin] Message from Bill Unger, VE3XT - Distracted Diving legislation (Bill118) | Info | |||
While driving through Columbus, I SAID" !" | CB | |||
IC-746 driving a Drake L4-B | Equipment | |||
IC-746 driving a Drake L4-B | Equipment |