"Patty Winter" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Steve Bonine wrote:

I think you said it all when you pointed out that there's a boatload of
reliable data indicating that it's dangerous to use a cell phone while
driving. Trying to operate a transceiver while driving certainly can't
be any less dangerous.

Although I think there's some merit to the League's comment about
hams not talking and listening at the same time.


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.

Aside from that, people who have problems with keeping their attention span
primarily to the driving, shouldn't drive. You don't have to look at the
mic, so it is actually potentially safer than having a passenger in the car.
It is that simple. Would you outlaw passengers? 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 have seen boatloads of data that gets overturned by boatloads of different
data all the time. After 40+ years in the land-mobile industry, and rubbing
elbows with many others in the community, experience with the real thing is
a lot more telling. I can tell you that "texting" and typing on a computer
keyboard certainly needs to be the job of the co-pilot.

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

wrote:
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 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.* Heck,
on any given night the vast majority of drunks on the road get home
without harming anyone or anything.

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...

Of course, being drunk makes you FAR, FAR more likely to commit one of
these dangerous activities. Being drunk is not an *excuse* for these
activities. I do not mean to suggest DUI is a good idea, nor that we
should make it legal.

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?



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.


--

Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

* For the record, I don't drink and have never been pulled over for DUI.

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