Ordinarily I try to avoid topics like these, but cell usage while driving has a special place in my heart...
There have been endless discussions of the results of cell phone use, but a few basics seem to get overlooked: 1) Cell phones involve full-duplex communication, a distinction that separates them from most other mobile voice systems; public service, hams, even CBers must wait until the other party completes their transmission before responding. The mental frame of reference for the user remains in the driver's seat just as if they were listening to entertainment radio or conversing with another human in attendance. Conversely,cell conversations inherently require the user to invent a mental meeting place for the exchange, redirecting at least some larger percentage of their attention away from the task at hand, no matter how otherwise competent the individual driver. I am sure that we have all seen people who were so engaged in a telephone conversation that they become oblivious to others around them- such is the nature of a rapid-fire exchange of thoughts. Neither party has insight into the circumstances of the other, so they must generate an imaginary environment. This makes cell usage unique. 2) Laws already exist that prohibit ANY activity that distracts from the driver's paying full attention to managing the vehicle; you discipline the kids or search under the seat at your own peril. In fact, most driver's education classes assign homework to students to clip accident reports from newspapers and analyze the cause- inevitably, the correct answer is: driver was not paying proper attention to driving the vehicle. 3) There is no valid logic behind contentions that if only "some" drivers present a danger, those who are capable should be given a pass. All other driving regulations, such as speed limits and following distances, are designated based on "lowest common denominator" drivers, vehicles and conditions to ensure that safety is maximized. If some significant number of drivers would be attention impaired by phone use, traffic officials are virtually mandated to prohibit or control their use. 4) Entire countries have seen fit to prohibit phone use while driving, Italy being a notable example; given the driving behaviors that that nation has seen fit to allow it makes a serious statement that they draw the line at phone use. 5) And the reason this topic has special meaning for me is that over the past several years I have suffered rear-end collisions twice, in both cases while sitting at a red signal and impacted by drivers on cell phones. Two such data points is more than sufficient to convince me that no matter what your perception of first amendment rights, that definition does NOT include the danger of vehicular homicide to me or my family. 6) just for frosting, I recall that when the cell phone networks were building out and this phenomenon was first presenting itself, those who wanted driving prohibition instituted at the outset were shouted down on the precept that it would discourage growth of the industry. Can we agree that the industry is now sufficiently robust that it doesn't need any more special care? -Phil WB6LQP --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SOCALWUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SOCALWUG SOCALWUG website: http://www.socalwug.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
