Example of the real problem ...
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
"Ed Cregger" wrote in
:

Since yo mentioned this.....
Think of all of the 911 calls that have saved folks' lives over the
years that the cellphone has been available to the public.

Risk versus benefit must be taken into consideration too.

Major truth disguised as sarcasm alert!

The really cool thing is that the cell phone user can cause an accident.
kill someone, and call 911 to efficiently get an ambulance to take them
to the morgue! At least they weren't killed by a drunk driver....

Sarcasm alert off

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1

Relating cell phone use while driving to drunken driving.

The Harvard cell phone study.

http://www.youngmoney.com/technology...ends/030205_02

Quick look:

2600 deaths per year/500,000 injuries.

Sorry Ed, I respectfully disgree 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

------------

In the end, none of what transpires in life truly matters anyway. I am a
believer (God, I hate using that word - oops!) in non locality. As such, and
believing that all that has ever happened, or ever will happen, is bundled
up in one tight little ball of data, we have no free will anyway, thus,
nothing is a matter of choice. It simply is and we're just those little
football players on the magnetic football game of life. Enjoy what you can
and ignore the rest.

Ed, NM2K

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

When "it" gets hot pop the battery off - now, which is hot the battery or
the phone?

Dave

That's a good question. Batteries do warm in operation, but the radio
heatsinks are often the back panel, driving heat into the battery rather
than your hand. People complain when they burn their hand so designers are
content to just sell more batteries.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Jim Lux wrote:


What you CAN say is that the studies prompting the early alarmist
literature (e.g. "currents of death", "VDTs cause miscarriage") have
severe methodological or statistical problems. Unfortunately, those
early studies have been (poorly) abstracted and summarized many times
and the caveats in the original paper, or subsequent better studies, are
ignored.


Absolutely. I am not at all afraid to use my cell phone in moderation.
It isn't going to make me drop over or faint - unless Ed McMahon calls
me about my PCH prize.

The issue to me is that we are seeing some effects that are more subtle
than nasty diseases or imminent death. Those early and poorly done
studies did not help for sure.

But you can see out on the roads - something is happening. There are
stone sober people who are driving like drunken people. Their reaction
times are bad, they make poor decisions they have trouble staying in
their lane, they drive through red lights and remain stopped at green
lights.

Some of the excuses given for this behavior just don't wash if you ask
me. Things like driving distracted, while plausible, have a niggling
problem. People like the police and Ham radio operators and plenty of
other folk use radios daily, yet when was the last time that you heard
about say a State Forest Ranger getting in an accident because he was
using the radio?

Many of these cell users survive on the good graces of other drivers
looking out for them, and avoiding them. Whereas once I would look at
the cars around me in a general fashion, I now zero in on the driver to
see if they are talking on their cell, or even worse, texting, I then
chart my course to separate myself from them as far as possible. Problem
is, there are too many of them on many local roads, and those places I
just avoid.

But I think is is just plain sad that we have to drive with impaired
drives every day.

The thing I find odd is that this behavior is verifiable and
widespread, and yet to point it out and ask the question "Is there
something going on here?" gets one labeled a kook.

And yet, if these very same drivers were driving intoxicated and killing
and injuring people, there would be the same old hue and cry. Is a
person killed by a drunk driver more dead than one killed by one using a
cell phone, and driving the same way as the drunk guy?

As the comedian once said "Drive carefully on the way home folks - it
only counts if you get killed during the holidays!"

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:41:20 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

People like the police and Ham radio operators and plenty of
other folk use radios daily, yet when was the last time that you heard
about say a State Forest Ranger getting in an accident because he was
using the radio?

Hi Mike,

Am I the only one to recall that time when it was AGAINST THE LAW to
operate a ham radio while driving for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS you
have witnessed with cell phone users poor driving performance? Having
a rig in the car came with the legal distinction of operating mobile
and operating remote. I've lived in states where you could only
operate remote, and it was against the law to operate mobile. Consult
old copies of the Ham rags for various campaigns to change the laws
(even to operating remote).

If the laws changed at all, it wasn't because of our legislative clout
so much as it was the telephone company's.

Ham radio operators behind the wheel and engaged in a QSO exhibit no
greater care than the ordinary driver on the cell phone.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Ham radio operators behind the wheel and engaged in a QSO exhibit no
greater care than the ordinary driver on the cell phone.

My half-duplex ham radio seems less distracting
than my full-duplex cell phone that I have to
hold to my ear and mouth at the same time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

Am I the only one to recall that time when it was AGAINST THE LAW to
operate a ham radio while driving for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS you
have witnessed with cell phone users poor driving performance?

Actually I don't, but okay.

Does it therefore follow that because those reasons turned out to be
wrong for operating Ham radio mobile that they are wrong for cell
phones? Despite the differences.

One of the more amusing aspects of DUIC driving is the slippery sloping
done by people. Equivalents are attempted to assure us that cell phones
are as safe as anything else because, hey, eating or drinking coffee is
a distraction, and just talking to the person beside you is a
distraction also. So the argument goes, you shouldn't discourage cell
phone use because then you would have to ban eating, drinking and
talking to anyone in the car.


Ham radio operators behind the wheel and engaged in a QSO exhibit no
greater care than the ordinary driver on the cell phone.


I would respectfully disagree there Richard. I'm nearly struck nearly
every day by someone operating mobile. I haven't kept count, but over
the years it's been possibly over a thousand times. You would think by
now, one or two of them would have been Hams operating mobile. We have a
very active Ham population around here, and the local repeaters are
constantly in use.

(note that my off the cuff "stats" are compiled for both personal
driving and pedestrian incidents and observed ones. Even if my figures
are exaggerated by faulty memory, I've never been in a collision or near
collision with a Ham during operation, or a truck driver while s/he was
using a CB. Same goes for law enforcement and various communication
vehicles.



- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
Ham radio operators behind the wheel and engaged in a QSO exhibit no
greater care than the ordinary driver on the cell phone.

I don't find that to be the case at all. Either for myself, or for
others I've discussed the issue with.

My half-duplex ham radio seems less distracting
than my full-duplex cell phone that I have to
hold to my ear and mouth at the same time.

I agree with Cecil, I find radio QSO's to be *much* less distracting
than cell phone conversations. I think there are a couple of reasons
for that.

1) Cell phones usually are only in one ear, even with a hands free
headset. I find it takes considerably more concentration to process
audio that is delivered in that fashion and most of the other folks
I've compared notes with find that also. The cabin filling audio of
the radio speaker which is heard by both ears is much easier to get
information from.

2) I think there is a different cultural meme about telephone
conversations vs radio conversations. I think most of us grow up using
a phone in a household where we tend to turn inwards and pay attention
to the call and isolate ourselves from the room full of distractions
(TV, other conversations, etc). I think that's reinforced by the
relatively low audio level in the handset which tends not to overpower
the local environment's noises, you pretty much have to focus on the
conversation on the phone and we learn that behavior. I believe that
'phone' behavior is carried over into cell phone usage, and mobile
cell phone usage where it's obviously not a good thing. In contrast
most folks have QSO's with room filling audio and a whole different
paradigm for how they interact with a 'radio' device as opposed to a
'telephone' device. I suspect that part of the popularity of the Push
To Talk services offered by some cell companies is because they break
that 'phone device' paradigm.

3) The conversations themselves might command more attention. It's one
thing to be chatting with my buddies on the radio, if I drop out of
the conversation to pay attention to traffic or whatever, there are no
repercussions. On the other hand, a business phone call may command a
lot more of my attention - if my boss has gone to the trouble of
tracking me down on my cell, it's likely the call carries more weight
than a casual conversation with friends. That alone will cause me to
invest more attention resources to dealing with it than I will for a
radio conversation, with whatever collateral effects on my
concentration for driving. If I'm trying to think about a problem and
do remote troubleshooting via phone, it's even worse and I better pull
over (and do).

I find that all three of these factors combine to make a cell phone
call much different than a radio conversation in terms of how it
impacts my situational awareness while driving (or flying). While
flying it's often the case that I'm listening to two different
conversations on two radios (tower and ATC) to piece together a
picture of what's going on in the airspace I'm in, and even that is
less attention grabbing than a cell call.

YMMV

73 de Kevin, WB2EMS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:25:47 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Ham radio operators behind the wheel and engaged in a QSO exhibit no
greater care than the ordinary driver on the cell phone.


I would respectfully disagree there Richard. I'm nearly struck nearly
every day by someone operating mobile.

And so do others, all probably cell-phone users too. I challenge
anyone to replace QSO with conversation and Rig with Cell-phone and
notice 200 million cell-phone user's claim to driving perfection while
talking.

The count of those you've seen operating dangerously could expand to
make a line stretching along the equator - each claiming with as much
gusto to have never presented a risk and swearing at ham radio
operators as driving impaired.

The fact remains that the current complaint about cell-phone users
behind the wheel ealier provided the identical logic for enforcing a
ban against Ham radio mobile operation. Only two things have changed:
the law, and the number of mobile operators of both classes. What has
not changed is poor performance. There is nothing inherent about Ham
mobile operation that is safer than cell-phone use and claims to the
contrary are self serving.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:25:47 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

The fact remains that the current complaint about cell-phone users
behind the wheel ealier provided the identical logic for enforcing a
ban against Ham radio mobile operation. Only two things have changed:
the law, and the number of mobile operators of both classes. What has
not changed is poor performance. There is nothing inherent about Ham
mobile operation that is safer than cell-phone use and claims to the
contrary are self serving.


Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, or whatever, Richard.

There are some differences between operating mobile and using a cell
phone, but gosh, I'm kinda tired of the whole thing.

I think we've just about beat this one to death, so we might as well get
back to antennas. You can have last word privileges if ya like.;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote in
:


I think we've just about beat this one to death, so we might as well
get back to antennas. You can have last word privileges if ya like.;^)


Ohh, I just had to share this one though:

I was coming home from work tonight. Part of the rout is on a road with
a center lane for left hand turns.

A lady pulls out from the left hand side of the road. She starts driving
down the middle of the road in the left turn lane. I figured she was
going to turn soon. Nope. She is going fairly slowly, so I figured I
would drive past in th enormal lane. As I was passing her, I looked over
and yup, there is the cell phoneI get past and continue. She drives the
better part of a mile in the center lane, causing some people to have to
get out of the lane, cuz she wasn't stopping. Then she comes up to the
light where she apparently *did* want to turn left. But for some unknown
reason, she went back into the travel lanes, nearly clipping the car
beside her. The she stops, backing up traffic. Then she proceeds to make
a left turn from the travel lane. Which cuts off the person who went
into the turn lane legally.

Simply brilliant.

Quite frankly, I'm beginning to *hope* that my thesis about cell phone
use causing people to become stupid is true, because otherwise I feel
badly for so many people who are so malfunctionally stupid without any
good excuse. I mean this lady is not going to last too long on the
highway.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:25:47 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

The fact remains that the current complaint about cell-phone users
behind the wheel ealier provided the identical logic for enforcing a
ban against Ham radio mobile operation. Only two things have changed:
the law, and the number of mobile operators of both classes. What has
not changed is poor performance. There is nothing inherent about Ham
mobile operation that is safer than cell-phone use and claims to the
contrary are self serving.


Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, or whatever, Richard.

There are some differences between operating mobile and using a cell
phone, but gosh, I'm kinda tired of the whole thing.

I think we've just about beat this one to death, so we might as well get
back to antennas. You can have last word privileges if ya like.;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

The big difference, I don't have to hold my radio up to my head limiting my
ability to see around and I can keep both hands on the wheel with the mic on
my lap most of the time. The cell phone just ties up more attention, my
hand, my head, then there's dialing. I rarely did TT control in motion.

Law in California now! Must Be Hands Free with the car in motion. Under 18
no Ham radios either! Only because of lobbys and lawyers that they don't go
after hams and CBers altogether. Of course they want to make it a law, no
photographing police field executions either due to the cost of litigation
to the citys.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:
... Of course they want to make it a law, no
photographing police field executions either due to the cost of litigation
to the citys.



That is sheer insanity!

The final word is always the people, to "blind" the people is to "burn
the constitution."

These are evil times we live in ... and run by the evil-ist of people!

George Orwells' 1984 is upon us ...

Regards,
JS