|
Driving Distracted
The ARRL seems to be taking a fairly strong position with regards to
amateur mobile operation in the face of a mountain of evidence suggesting that texting or cell phone use while driving is as dangerous, or more so, as drinking and driving: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/08/09/11012/?nc=1 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? -- 73 de Jeff |
Driving Distracted
Jeff Davis wrote:
The ARRL seems to be taking a fairly strong position with regards to amateur mobile operation in the face of a mountain of evidence suggesting that texting or cell phone use while driving is as dangerous, or more so, as drinking and driving: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/08/09/11012/?nc= 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 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. In spite of the fact that licensed amateur radio operators think they're completely capable of operating and driving at the same time, hams are people just like the rest of the population. Obtaining a license from the FCC does not improve ones ability to drive while distracted. Trying to justify an exception to these laws based on emergency communication is simply ludicrous. Only a tiny fraction of in-motion mobile is actually related to an emergency. I think that this stance by the ARRL is simply wrong. Yes, it fly in the face of years of tradition that one should not operate in-motion mobile. But when data showed that seat belts save lives, we started using them. When data showed that smoking was bad, we stopped smoking. For folks who are still driving without a seat belt, smoking, and ragchewing all at the same time, nothing I say is going to change your mind. 73, Steve KB9X |
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
"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. |
Driving Distracted
On Aug 10, 2:30�pm, Jeff Davis wrote:
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? Not really. All the ARRL is doing is advocating that amateur radio not be lumped into the same category as cellphones or texting. More important, consider that amateurs have been operating mobile rigs for at least 75 years (including WERS mobiles during WW2). In all that time, can anyone cite a case - just one - where amateur radio operation was cited as a primary or even a secondary cause for an accident? Meanwhile, consider that while cell phones have only been common for about 15 years, if that, the documented cases where cell-phone-use- while-driving has been a major contributing factor to accidents are so numerous that several states and municipalities have banned their use while driving, or required hands-free operation only. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Driving Distracted
Jeff Davis wrote:
The ARRL seems to be taking a fairly strong position with regards to amateur mobile operation in the face of a mountain of evidence suggesting that texting or cell phone use while driving is as dangerous, or more so, as drinking and driving: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/08/09/11012/?nc= 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? Disagreement? Bad press? Hard feelings? Quite possibly. Liability? No, I don't think so. All they're doing is advocating (as in "free speech" and "lobbying"), and in fact they're specifically advocating that hams who do operate mobile do so only in ways which don't put others at risk. Granted, anybody can sue anybody for anything for any reason in this country... but I think it'd be a very long stretch for someone to succeed in winning a case against the ARRL based on their position and statements. 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. True. Trying to operate a transceiver while driving certainly can't be any less dangerous. Well, it *can* be less dangerous (or so I believe). I think that this is a good area in which to base actual legislation (or a decision not to have legislation) on actual research and facts, rather than on guesses and conjectures and opinions. My guess (grin) is that it depends very much on what you're doing with the ham radio. If you're just listening - it's probably no worse than listening to the car FM or AM radio. If you're tuning around - it's probably about as dangerous as tuning your car FM radio, or trying to put a different CD into the player. Could be dangerous. If you're talking on the mike - you're more distracted then when you're just listening, but unlike the tuning-around situation (or changing a CD, etc.) you don't have to take your eyes off of the road. Might be very distracting, might be no problem at all, depending on how engaged you are in the conversation. [The same is true with conversations with passengers in the car, by the way... anywhere from no-problem-at-all to OK-now-look-at-the-tree-you-made-me-drive-into.] If you're trying to dial in a message to be transmitted via APRS, it's probably about as dangerous as cell/SMS-texting while driving (i.e. insanely dangerous IMO, please do *not* do this!) Obtaining a license from the FCC does not improve ones ability to drive while distracted. Granted. The real question is, just how *much* distraction actually results from various forms of equipment usage? Trying to justify an exception to these laws based on emergency communication is simply ludicrous. Only a tiny fraction of in-motion mobile is actually related to an emergency. If ham radio transmitting while driving is to be outlawed because it's inherently too distracting and dangerous, then (as the ARRL points out) one should outlaw *all* similar transmission behavior by *all* drivers who are not actually involved in an in-progress emergency. That would include public-safety land-mobile (i.e. most police radio use by the driver), private land-mobile (e.g. cab drivers, business radio use by delivery trucks), CB (truckers), FRS (by families in convoy), and so forth. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Yes, it fly in the face of years of tradition that one should not operate in-motion mobile. But when data showed that seat belts save lives, we started using them. When data showed that smoking was bad, we stopped smoking. And, *if* actual *data* shows that typical land-mobile radio use does result in a high enough level of distraction to significantly raise the accident rate, then I'd agree that legislative action is called for. I don't feel that simply taking data on cellphone usage effects, and applying these data willy-nilly to land-mobile/CB/ham use, is justified. I've seen some discussions which indicate that there are valid psychological reasons why cell-phone conversations are *extremely* distracting during driving... and that these factors do not necessarily apply to typical land-mobile / ham usage. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Driving Distracted
|
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
"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. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
"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. |
Driving Distracted
|
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
|
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
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 |
Driving Distracted
On Aug 12, 9:01 am, Steve Bonine wrote:
The issue is distraction to a driver. I agree! It makes no difference whether you can hear the other person while you're talking. I disagree. It makes all the difference in the world. In typical amateur simplex operation, the person who is talking controls the conversation. S/he cannot be interrupted and can always just drop it or say "wait". 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. Actually not. At least not for the kind of mobiling most hams do. Here's a personal example. I used to do quite a bit of 2 meter FM mobiling. Never had an accident or a close call. My 2 meter rig was an HW-2036 mounted under the dash. The only controls were off-on-volume, squelch, offset and thumbwheel switches for the frequency. The knobs were big and I could operate the rig without looking at it by counting clicks and listening to the effects. A typical mobile operation consisted of setting the rig to a local repeater *while stopped*, then listening. The speaker meant I could listen with two ears instead of one, and with both hands on the wheel. If I wanted a QSO and the repeater was quiet, I'd wait for a time when I was stopped and announce my presence as "N2EY mobile three, listening". If I got a call, I'd just pick up the mike and talk when it was safe to do so and have a QSO. If there was an ongoing QSO that I wanted to join, I'd wait for a break and announce my presence. Same resulty. In all cases the other hams on the repeaters knew that mobiles might not come back right away, might miss words or entire transmissions, or might disappear for no reason because they needed to concentrate on the road or had gone down into a bad spot, etc. No worries and no pressure. Most of them had enough operating sense to talk clearly and relatively slowly, to repeat important words and phrases and to structure the conversation in a way that made sense. In amateur operation, there are lots of cues about when it's your turn to talk and such. Callsigns and prosigns and such help a lot. Of course sometimes folks get carried away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI Now I have a cell phone, and it's a whole different world. I used to use it while driving, and while I never had a close call, I simply stopped because it was simply too distracting. For one thing, when the cell rings, you have only a certain amount of time to answer before it goes to voicemail. The result is a mad grab to get the phone, see who it is and open it up. When the phone is answered, many callers don't ask if you can talk, they just launch into a conversation. They expect your full attention to the conversation and often don't realize you need to focus on the road even when you tell them. Often the conversations are about important stuff like who has to be where when, which is even more distracting. People often expect instant back-and-forth on the cell, which takes a much different toll on the gray matter. Cell phones also require that you drive one-handed all the time unless you have a hands-free setup. Even with one of those, you're only listening with one ear, which is different from a speaker. I suppose a voice-operated speaker box is the best option. So now I just don't answer the cell while driving. If it rings and there's someone else in the car, I let them answer it. If not, I let it go to voicemail and call back when I can talk safely and am not driving. That is, if I even have the phone on while in the car. 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. I disagree, because the distraction is fundamentally different. To say, "The driver isn't distracted because he can't hear the other person while he's talking" is not logical. It is logical to me! Over 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Driving Distracted
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. For some reason talking on the cell phone while driving seems to capture my full attention and concentration. Even when I am looking at the road. The mobile half duplex requires much less attention and/or concentration for me. It is like you have to think when to reply or talk on the phone. I just wait for the other station to stop transmitting. Not much thought or less brain engagement. Paul P |
Driving Distracted
Steve Bonine wrote:
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. I disagree and I maintain that it certainly makes a difference. Being able to hear the person on the other end at the same time I am talking, is an additional distraction. 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. Are you kidding? My cellular phone is filled with little tiny buttons and it has a little tiny screen filled with little tiny menu items. It doesn't have a flip cover. I may or may not have to change the frequency of my mobile rig. Mine has a outboard front panel which is mounted on my dash. I don't need to look away from the road to see it. 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. If you don't like it, Steve, then don't operate your cellular phone or your mobile amateur station. Don't tell me that I can't because then you are on that slippery slope. There'll be those who tell us that we can't eat that Big Mac, sip that coffee or Pepsi, use that GPS, change that CD or even listen to that broadcast radio while moving. Me? I've been operating mobile for over forty years and have never had an accident while doing so--FM, SSB or even CW. Dave Heil K8MN |
Driving Distracted
Dave Heil wrote:
If you don't like it, Steve, then don't operate your cellular phone or your mobile amateur station. Don't tell me that I can't because then you are on that slippery slope. There'll be those who tell us that we can't eat that Big Mac, sip that coffee or Pepsi, use that GPS, change that CD or even listen to that broadcast radio while moving. Me? I've been operating mobile for over forty years and have never had an accident while doing so--FM, SSB or even CW. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". There are millions of people who have driven millions of miles drunk and not had an accident, but laws were enacted banning DUI. I believe that laws banning cell phone use while driving are appropriate. Yes, it's a slippery slope, but all laws are a slippery slope. That's why our lawmakers are so well paid and respected grin. In your opinion, mobile radio operation is less distracting than cell phone use. I can't prove that it is or isn't, and there will never be a scientific study on this narrow topic. That means that our lawmakers must make the decision based on input from us and organizations like the ARRL. That's a scary thought, but it's the way that the process works. I believe that the ARRL's position on the issue is wrong. You don't. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. But I'd like to leave it at that. I am not "telling you" what you can or cannot do; I am expressing my opinion. 73, Steve KB9X |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com