|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
Alan Applegate (K0BG)
on
August 24, 2006
View comments about this article!
The word Telemeter is defined as an apparatus for recording the readings of an instrument and transmitting the accumulated data by radio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses an adjective form of the word telemetrics to describe the use of mobile communications devices. Although amateurs relate this to two way radios communications, there are other forms. For example, cell phones, mobile fax machines, e-mail, navigation systems, and devices under driver voice command.
While some of these devices are more distracting than others (their basic design plays an important part), the cell phone is by far the most distracting. This fact has prompted some political entities to enact laws governing their use while underway. The city of Santa Fe, NM is once such entity. Within the city limits of Santa Fe, if you use a cell phone while underway, it must be operated in a handsfree mode. In the nearly two years the ordinance has been in effect, local authorities have written over 3,000 $60 tickets to scofflaws. The city of Lawrence, KS is poised to go one step further, and eliminate all mobile-in-motion cell phone usage. At this writing, over 100 cities have joined the ranks with anti-cell phone ordinances on their books with lots more on the way.
The question you might be asking, what has this to do with amateur radio? The simple answer is, none of the ordinances exempt amateur radio per se. In fact, most of the ordinances give police officials sole discretion in the decision to write a citation. In other words, we’re walking on some very thin ice while operating mobile-in-motion amateur radio in jurisdictions which have anti-cell phone ordinances on the books.
This brings up another question; is handsfree use actually safer than non-handsfree use? According to the NHTSA it isn’t. This very question was ask in one of their recent polls; Do you believe hands-free technology is sufficient to address safety concerns related to cell phone use while driving? Seventy-three percent said no! When asked if local governments should enact laws to restrict the use of cell phones while driving, 74% said yes, even though 63% of the respondents don’t use handsfree operation themselves. An even more disturbing and alarming fact (handsfree use notwithstanding), studies by the NHTSA have shown you are safer driving on the road with a drunk than you are a cell phone user!
The biggest question of all, are amateur radio operators statistically safer than cell phone users? I think not, even though there are no supporting data either side of the argument. I recently posed this question to a local police officer; If you were investigating a vehicle crash, and it was evident that a major contributing factor was the use of amateur radio, how would you so indicate on your report? Since the local police department is partially funded by the fed, the use of telemetrics must be included in their reports. The problem is, it’s a check box! In other words, the crash report doesn't differentiate one form of telemetrics from another unless the officer specifically mentions it. This obviously roils the statistics, but not the bottom line; amateur radio is as distracting as cell phone use.
I believe there are several actions every amateur radio operator can make which will lessen the distraction, and perhaps earn us an exemption in the landslide of new anti-telemetric ordinances.
1). When driven conditions are poor (heavy traffic, rain, snow, etc.), hang up the microphone and pay better attention to your driving.
2). Where it is legal, use a good quality headset like those offered by Heil Sound. If vehicle interior environment is quiet enough, a noise-canceling headset will allow the use of VOX. Just remember to keep a civil tongue towards the idiot in front of you.
3). Mount your radios in such a manner that dangling microphone cables and power cords are safely out of the driving interference zone, yet are easy to control and operate.
4). Use one of the inexpensive digital voice recorders to log your important contacts. If you have a passenger, let them do it. Better yet, let them drive and you operate.
5). Last but not least, get involved with your local governmental entities, and work towards exempting amateur radio from the avalanche of anti-telemetric ordinances. This is best done as a united front, so get your local clubs and Section Managers involved too.
Alan, K0BG
http://www.k0bg.com
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K1HC on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good comments, Alan! I would add something to your number 3: Make sure your radio mount and cables do not interfere with the deployment of your car's air bags. You don't want that radio to be propelled by the air bag into you or your passenger.
73,
Dick, K1HC
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AD5X on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Alan - Great article, and certainly something we mobile operators need to be aware of. I was recently side-swiped by a guy on a mobile phone who didn't realize he was drifting across the road. And how many of us have seen mobile phone users do careless things because they were on the phone? Since I was sideswiped, I've pretty much limited my cell phone use and ham mobile operation to when I am parked or when I am a passenger in my car - since I believe I'm no less distracted operating my mobile rig then when I'm on a cell phone.
So now my question. If -
"... studies by the NHTSA have shown you are safer driving on the road with a drunk than you are a cell phone user!" and "... are amateur radio operators statistically safer than cell phone users? I think not, even though there are no supporting data either side of the argument."
then - why should we work to make sure that amateur radio mobile operation is exempt from the ordinances against cell phone use while driving?
Phil - AD5X
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KI4FJT on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Not to throw a rock into this post but I was rearended by a ham who wasn't paying attention while I was stopped in traffic ,according to the police he was operating at the time, injured me and totaled my pickup...It comes down to some that can multitask and the others that can't, but how do you decide? There are a lot of bad drivers out there you know of.....BUT...do you know of anyone that will say that "THEY" are a bad driver?
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4JF on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KI4FJT has an important point, which directly indicates a problem with lawmakers of today.
Cell phone use may or may not impair the driving on any given individual. It depends on the individual. Same with Amateur Radio, even though it is decidedly less so than the cell phone. But laws take the worst person and throw the restriction at all of us.
I used to see a particular car on my way to work every morning. The lady was always on the cellphne, but her driving was darn near perfect. Others are all over the road as they try to use the phone.
The law should govern the behavior, not the device.
It should also be noted that studies have shown the problem to be the talking, not the cellphone. Talking with a passenger in the car has exactly the same effect as talking to someone on the phone. Are they going to mandate solo driving?
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB9JTK on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Headsets" ?
do you mean a head mounted microphone ? Anything over the ears is illegal in many states. Some exempt 2-way communications if it is only over one ear.
Amateur radio communications is simplex. Cellphones are duplex. That is a huge difference to me.
Is operating a radio or telephone while driving actually dangerous. Apparently not. Look in any cop-car; computer(s), radios, cellphones, GPS, etc etc etc. The cops believe using all this stuff in their vehicles while speeding and running red lights without turn signals (or siren or blue lights) is safe. The cops illustrate proper procedures to us this way nearly every day.
And it depends WHERE you are operating. I find that when making a 1200 mile drive on the interstates that having a qso with a few friends on 7.030 keeps me much more alert throughout 10 hour days of driving. This really makes a difference when I have a passenger snoring in the seat next to me. However, when driving in big cities, like populations over 10,000, construction zones, rain, snow, wind etc etc, the HF rig is off.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA1SCI on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting question as to why a cell phone conversation is more distracting than a conversation with a passenger.
Perhaps more concentration is required to listen to a cell phone or radio than to someone who is sitting right beside you.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA1SCI on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Just noticed that another poster claims that a conversation with a passeger is in fact just as dangerous as a cell phone call. Can anyone cite a study that shows this? If that is true, it would seem that drunks driving solo should be amoung the safest drivers out there, and we know that doesn't make sense.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K0BG on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After I posted the article, I found the following english translation of the Japanese federal code governing mobile radio operation.
Please Concentrate On Driving!?
An amendment to the Road Traffic Act has taken effect on November 1, 1999 banning the use of hand held communication equipment (including amateur radio hand held transceivers) while driving. Also the Act says "should not look at car navigation systems (including "display" of amateur radio equipment) for a long period of time."
(1) Prohibition of the use of the portable telephone while driving
One of the new rules the driver must observe is that "he/she must not use the radio communication equipment e.g. portable telephone while driving. This "radio communication equipment" means the equipment which cannot transmit or receive a message without holding a part or a whole of the equipment in hand. This includes handy type transceiver which is held in hand when transmitting or receiving a message. On the other hand, this rule is not applied to the use of the hands free equipment for the amateur radio operation and the so-called mounted type transceiver for the mobile vehicle which is fixed to the car.
(2) Prohibition of observation of the picture display equipment
The next rule the driver must keep is that "he/she must not watch the picture on the picture display equipment e.g. car navigation system." This rule prohibits continued observation of pictures of the picture display equipment such as car navigation system and car television. It is permissible to use the car navigation system in the usual way, but it is prohibited to see the picture display equipment continuously while the car is running in order to operate the equipment for detection of a restaurant or a gas station or to input information for route leading to the destination. "The picture display equipment" in the above paragraph includes not only the car navigation system or the color television, but the liquid crystal display equipment frequently used for recent radio equipment which provide information such as radio frequency, SWR, ALT and RS. Therefore, while the car is running, it is against the rule to see the picture of the display equipment continuously to change frequency or to tune the antenna, or to see the picture of the display equipment continuously to send or receive data by packet communication or to read information in letters of the portable telephone. For the person who violated the above rule and as a result incurred the traffic risk on the road, the penal regulation (penal servitude of 3 months or less, or a fine of 50,000 yen or less) will be applied.
(3) For safe driving
Even before enforcement of the above regulations, the Road Traffic Law, Article 70 "Obligation for Safe Driving" has been applied as a penal rule to the driver who incurred the traffic accident due to forward inattention while the car is running operating the portable telephone or the radio equipment, or being engrossed in watching television. The purpose of the revision of the rules of this time is to clarify by law the responsibility of the driver to cope with the rapid increase of traffic accidents due to the remarkable popularization of the car navigation system.
It is our earnest request that every radio amateur will enjoy mobile ham in consideration of safe driving by using hands free equipment or a mounted type transceiver for the mobile vehicle while driving.
This code exemplifies why we need to be cognizant in our own country.
As for the response about the head sets... In some jurisdictions headset use is allowed if only one ear is covered. In others it is outlawed or restricted in other ways. This is why I added the first few words.. if it is legal..
A few months back, I sent an e-mail to Bob Heil, and suggested he investigate designing a headset that uses Bluetooth technology. There are several cellphone models available that are worn on the belt, but a Bluetooth headset which hangs on the ear allows for full handsfree use. Since he didn't respond, I suspect he is working on such a solution.
There is a lot more to this story, and in the next few months when the NHTSA finishes its first comprehensive report on telemetric use, we're certainly going to be reading about it. And most likely, fighting all-encompassing laws.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4IA on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The most distracting part of cell phone use is dialing not talking. Hands-free does not solve the problem.
This is just another example of nannies using junk science to legislate what is "best" for us.
Just because someone was on a cell phone when an accident occured does not mean the cell phone caused the accident. Because there are more cell phones in use today, I would expect the number of accidents with cell phones to increase. They are statisically and logically independent. If more people wore red hats, there would be more red hats in accidents. Did the hats cause the accident? No.
Driving up I95 at 80 mph, I have seen men shaving and women putting on makeup using the rear view mirror. I have seen drivers reading a book or newpaper draped over the steering wheel. Now, that is distracted driving.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WR8Y on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"""""This is just another example of nannies using junk science to legislate what is "best" for us."""""
Exactly.
---
I wonder what they'd think of mobile CW? (Interstate driving + cruise control + mobile CW = a more relaxing, more enjoyable trip!)
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by USCG_RMC on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with Jim, I know for a fact that my wife can't talk and drive. I need a good stiff drink everytime I ride in her car.
I make it a point to pull over when I need to use the phone or radio. Not always the case, but at least I try.
It never fails to amaze me how a little subcompact will give thought to taking my space in traffic (I have a 6100lb Astro Van). I am forever making sure I have an alternative route to an open lane.
I use a mic/ear piece w/vox if I want to work the radio on a long haul or for storm hunting.
Herb/K0HEA
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WW5AA on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a Law Enforcement Officer for over 35 years, some of it working traffic enforcement, I have never investigated a traffic accident involving the use of a two-way radio. Lots of collisions caused by cell phones however. Recently I have seen a few reports where the driver was using built in GPS. I would say that HAM's need to take extra caution, since one major incident miss-reported by the drive-by press could spell trouble. My 2 cents.
73, de Lindy
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AI2IA on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a timely and very important topic. To me it is worth reading every sane comment on this issue, since repeater use while commuting can be so very useful.
So far, I think that Jim, K4JF, has hit the critical point: " The law should govern the behavior, not the device."
I see a strong analogy to firearms. They can save a life or take a life. It depends on the operator. All I can say for the moment is that it seems best to stick with VHF/UHF mobile and keep QSOs very brief. Also, HF use seems to be a "pull over and park" kind of operation. In any case, safety must always come first. I look forward to more sane comments on this one.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One way to legislate this important issue is being tried in a local jurisdiction--it is a way that makes sense, to me at least. The ordinance permits the officer to stop and ticket offending drivers --only if their operation of the mobile communication device results in violation of another traffic control ordinance-- in other words, the cel phone/communication use can only be a secondary offence.
In other words, if you are using a cel phone and are driving OK, no ticket. But if you are using that cel phone and drift into another lane, look out--double whammy!
I suggest that if local or other ordinances are being pushed and it looks like there is no way to get an amateur radio exemption, this 'method' be tried to lessen the impact of the new ordinance. As one person already stated, it really isn't the talking, it is the dialing and trying to use other features of the phone that is really distracting. 73!
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a Law Enforcement Officer for over 35 years, some of it working traffic enforcement, I have never investigated a traffic accident involving the use of a two-way radio.
-------------------
Perhaps the accident statistics don't actually refer to it as "Two Way Radio" but rather "Talking while driving." instead?
I am going to inject some factual statistics into this message thread just to keep the discussion interesting:
Every 13 minutes, there is a death caused by a motor vehicle accident. Auto accident statistics show that Americans from the ages of 1-33 are more likely to die from a car accident than from anything else.
About 26% of drivers have been involved in a car crash in the last five years.
The Safety Traffic Administration reports that most drivers engage in activities that take their attention away from the road.
These activities include:
Talking with other passengers: 81%
Playing with the radio or CD: 66%
Eating or drinking: 49%
Using a cell phone: 25%
73 KC8VWM
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KE3HO on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article Alan. You made some good points, as usual. However, I am concerned about a few things.
>> The biggest question of all, are amateur radio operators statistically safer than cell phone users? I think not, even though there are no supporting data either side of the argument. I recently posed this question to a local police officer; If you were investigating a vehicle crash, and it was evident that a major contributing factor was the use of amateur radio, how would you so indicate on your report? <<
The premise of your question to the officer was basically "If it was evident that 'xxxx' was a major contributing factor......" This, of course, dictates the answer, whatever 'xxxx' might be. If 'xxxx' was that the guy was driving with 4 flat tires, that would be pretty "evident". But what, exactly, would make it "evident" that ham radio operation was a "major contributing factor" in the accident? The fact that the driver was operating? The fact that the ham radio was on (but no evidence that the driver was operating)? The fact that the ham radio was in the car (without evidence that it was even turned on)? THIS is the more important question. How do you determine if a factor such as ham radio operation contributed to an accident?
>> This brings up another question; is handsfree use actually safer than non-handsfree use? According to the NHTSA it isn’t. This very question was ask in one of their recent polls; Do you believe hands-free technology is sufficient to address safety concerns related to cell phone use while driving? Seventy-three percent said no! When asked if local governments should enact laws to restrict the use of cell phones while driving, 74% said yes, even though 63% of the respondents don’t use handsfree operation themselves. <<
This really disturbes me. Since when do public opition polls indicate what is safe or unsafe? If you conducted a poll to ask people if they thought it was safe to have a nuclear reactor across the street from their home, I am sure that the vast majority would say no. But I would rather live across the street from a nuclear reactor than live next door to someone who has a wood stove. If you conducted a poll to ask people if overhead high voltage power lines pose a health threat, I am sure that more than half would say yes. Then most of those people would go home and dry their hair with an electric hair dryer and crawl into bed and pull their electric blanket over themselves and not think twice about it. Is the NTHSA really basing their decision on public opinion polls rather than carefully conducted and reviewed research?
I know people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I worry about these people driving at all, with or without a cell phone. I have seen people do stupid things while driving and talking on their cell phone. I have personally done a stupid thing or two while driving and talking on the cell phone while holding it up to my ear, which prompted me to get a hands-free headset. I can say from my personal experience that talking on the cell phone with the hands-free headset is FAR less distracting and dangerous than holding the phone to my hear. The hands-free headset is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. I use voice dial to place my calls while driving and if I need to call a number that is not programmed I pull off and stop somewhere to dial, or I wait until I get to the next red light to dial.
All this said, I agree that we need to be careful and we also need to be aware of the laws, exising and proposed. Even when the law is specifically written about cell phones, there can still be problems for hams. See this new story: http://www.eham.net/articles/12676
Thanks Alan
73 - Jim
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KA3CTQ on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Did anyone see the "Myth-Busters" show that proved the premise that talking on the cell phone slowed your reaction time equal to driving drunk.
They had two drivers run a test course three times, once without distraction, once with a cell phone, and the last at the leagal limit of intoxication.
The cell phone and beer both reduced the driver's reaction time by around 40% from the base line.
Maybe we need to ask them to do another experiment to include talking on a radio.
73, Dan KA3CTQ
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K3AN on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have not been the cause of an accident in at least the last 25 years. That last one back then was backing up too fast in a parking lot and whacking a parked car's bumper. But in the years that I actively operated 2M mobile, I missed a turn more than once while yakking on the radio.
Any type of communication is a major distraction. I remember reading that the safest drivers are those who don't say much at all to their passengers while they're driving. Nowadays I can tell when the driver in front of me is on their cell phone by the way their car drifts one way or the other in their lane, followed by a sharp correction. Just like a drunk driver.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AD5TD on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just had the first wreck that was MY fault in over 30 years. I was operating on one of the local 2M repeaters. I was distracted. Not much damage, but still, it's a royal pain in the...
Hang up and drive....
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KA3CTQ on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Driving up I95 at 80 mph, I have seen men shaving and women putting on makeup using the rear view mirror. I have seen drivers reading a book or newpaper draped over the steering wheel. Now, that is distracted driving. "
Driving thru Raleigh-Durham on I40 in the morning, there were two cars that I memorized the color and plate. One lady in a red Honda reads books and a guy in a Ford F-150 has the news paper on top of the steering wheel as he drives. They do this every morning.
I'm happy that I don't have to run that road any more.
73, Dan KA3CTQ
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N4FOZ on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thanks, I am sure we'll all sleep better tonite after reading this missive.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AB2MH on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We are safe here, but overzealous cops can sometimes misinterpret even the best written laws.
New York's laws don't exempt anyone, but they specifically define which service is not allowed:
http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/phon-vt.htm
1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Mobile telephone" shall mean the device used by subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access such service.
New Jersey's law mentions "wireless telephone."
In NJ have never seen anyone being pulled over for talking on a ham radio.
In NYC I've heard of people getting $40 (+$50 surcharge) tickets for using amateur radio while driving. The law is clear though - the only service affected is wireless telephone service, and if you have a good lawyer and a copy of the official V&T law book from the DMV, and prove you were not on the phone at that time (your phone bill is usually sufficient proof) you will get off.
However, do understand that in NYC the ALJ often will convict you out of spite or simply to generate revenue for the city. It is not at all uncommon for people to get BS tickets for all sorts of silly blue laws and misinterpretations of actual enforced laws.
For example, a few years ago businesses were being fined by the city for having improper signage on their businesses. Apparently some blue law states that all you are allowed to have on your sign is your business name and address, nothing else. Parking meters placed too close to fire hydrants is another. There is sometimes no way to escape a ticket, no matter how you try, simply because the Government wants the money.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by EXWA2SWA on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Driving a ton or more of metal and plastic containing several gallons of potentially explosive liquid at speeds approaching take-off velocity for small airplanes is NOT a multitasking activity. Hang up, shut up, leave the coffee cup in the holder and the lipstick (or electric shaver) in your purse or briefcase and pay attention.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AB2MH on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
By the way, I am not hanging up the mic unless things get too hectic. I am very capable of multitasking and driving. :)
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good topic!
Seems like anyone can be distracted using cellphone or radio and this would be a real issue when there is traffic volume.
Not to add the code vs no-code debate into this but some of us do CW operating when driving in wide-open conditions on the road. The key sitting on the adjacent seat works out fine and still allows me to look forward. However, most of the time, I would recommend pulling over when operating any mode, phone, CW or digital!!
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W1ITT on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
One thing that would enhance the safety of mobile operations would be the return of transceivers with real knobs instead of a few buttons and layers of menu items. I can operate my good old FT-900 by "Braille" with my eyes on the road. Most all the newer stuff, while nicely stocked with features and capabilities, relies on menu operations, which require the operator to take eyes off the road, refocus and interpret a sometimes cryptic legend. For safety, give me a knob, not a sequence of buttons.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing that would enhance the safety of mobile operations would be the return of transceivers with real knobs instead of a few buttons and layers of menu items.
--------------
Good point.
That's one of the main reasons why I opted for Motorola commercial radio gear instead of Yeacomwood or Kencomsu radio equipment.
Seems like Motorola designed radios more ergonomically correct with actual mobile driving conditions in mind.
73
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I get older and slower, I have needed
to change a lotta habits. For any cell
phone conversation, I pull off to the side
of the road and turn on hazard lights.
For a short duration radio contact, that is
answer a call and make one, or at most, two
transmissions, I'll keep going. More than
that, I use the same procedure as the cellphone.
Heck, it wasn't that long ago I could pursue,
talk on the radio and unrack the scattergun simultaneously,
at the same time. However, your reactions slow
as you age, heck, I mostly open carry now
to gain the extra fractions of a second to get on
a target, if necessary.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I might add, fortunately I retired
before MDTs became popular, now instead
of a radio, you have to type a lotta
stuff in or at least push "hot keys".
I see the deputies go by with
emergency equipment on, one hand on the
keyboard and the other on the wheel.
That takes REAL multitasking. I think
they shoulda stuck with radios. Even the
local volunteer FD has them, but often
there is someone other than the driver to
push the keys: enroute, arrived, etc.
73 de Ronnie
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good artical. I saw a woman riding a bike on a crowded
NYC street speaking on a cell phone. She was also speaking in French!
There was a ham that used to use his Collins rig in his mobile, placing his wife and kids at risk.
Unless your Police, nobody should use ANY wireless device will driving!
It looks stupid, and shows a total disregard for others.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WI8W on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A few of you have stated not to allow anything in the path of your airbags. I agree 100%
In my ham career I have seen all types of mobile installations.
One particular one comes to mind.
This fella asked me to check out his mobile setup. Out to his car we went and I guess he decided to have the radio as close as possible to himself so he screwed the mobile bracket right in the middle of his steering wheel.
It was a pretty neat installation if I do say so my self but he was astounded and untterly amazed when I told him that if that airbag deployed, the last thing he would see would be his radio traveling right through his brain.
Then I told him that because he screwed the mount into the airbag he would have to get that replaced. Then I told him about how much it would cost.
To quote Ron White
"Simply put...you simply cannot fix stupid."
73
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KA4HWX on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It should also be noted that studies have shown the problem to be the talking, not the cellphone. Talking with a passenger in the car has exactly the same effect as talking to someone on the phone. Are they going to mandate solo driving?"
Not sure if a study was done or not, but several years ago one U.S. Senator tried to push through a bill that called for only the driver in the car because of this fact.
So, there must be a study somewhere out there.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"By the way, I am not hanging up the mic unless things get too hectic. I am very capable of multitasking and driving. :)"
So am I........Screeeeeech! Crunch! Oops...I thought I was! ;-))
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent points, Alan.
My suggestion is that if the wheels are spinning and you are yakkin', then let someone else drive.
Or pull over.
There is a famous, old photo of W6AM driving along operating CW at 70 MPH (allegedly). This photo always scared the &%^& out of me....
I have an IC-7K and I op mobile on occasion. But no while moving.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"......he screwed the mobile bracket right in the middle of his steering wheel.
It was a pretty neat installation if I do say so my self but he was astounded and untterly amazed when I told him that if that airbag deployed, the last thing he would see would be his radio traveling right through his brain......"
Doubtful--for two reasons. First, the airbag deploys so fast you probably would not see it--or the setup--moving at all, you would just feel the impact for a split second. And that brings up the second. In a bad crash, the airbag would already be holed and more than likely shredded as soon as the gas generator activated--you would hear a bang and then be looking at the hood of your car with the windshield around your neck--if you lived that long!
Airbags are all too fragile--safety codes all but flat out demand that the airbag cartridge be replaced if there is ANY damage to the covering, even a small crack. Life safety is a paramount concern--even to those that think differently!! Anyway, true amazement is looking at am imprint of the head of your rig when you looked in the mirror! And you're right, there is no fix for stupid! ;-)
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I guess he decided to have the radio as close as possible to himself so he screwed the mobile bracket right in the middle of his steering wheel."
-------------------
...And more importantly, as long as he quickly doesn't forget to ID per Part 97 at the end of his transmission just before the very instant the airbag has sucessfully deployed the radio's VFO display into his brain, then I suppose he wouldn't be cited for breaking any operating rules.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W5RB on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Alan, I applaud your 5 points for mobile ops to observe . However , I disagree with some of your statistical conclusions .To extend the cellphone stats to hams in absence of any evidence is unfair .And while I'm very aware of how "justice " tends to work in traffic court , frankly , I'm confident that NO local jurisdiction has the authority to prohibit what my federally -issued license *specifically permits* , that being mobile operation .I'm not an in-your-face kinda fella , and I agree that education and pushing for exemptions where such ordinances exist are an appropriate course .The reason behind most of the cellphone horror stats is personal injury lawyers , anyway . Ever since the industry got to be one of the most profitable around , they've floated the continual rumors that cellphones cause brain tumors , or accidents , or something .They ,and their collaborators , just have to keep telling that lie long enough to make the most gullible jury pools believe it .Maybe we should give personal responsibilty a chance and let the accident stats decide who gets to keep driving .Get the worst 5% of drivers off the road , and we'll all be better off , and safer .
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KE7AKS on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I will admit that when I first started to CHAT DURING COMMUTE, that I found the radio did distract me at times. If a person does make a practice of PRIORITISING, and realizing that being aleart to the driving part of multi tasking has to be first, I believe we can learn to multitask quite well. If this were not true, then one should NEVER fly in an airplane...the pilot must be aware of indicators, radar displays, two way radio conversations, warning beepers, buzzers,etc.. As one post already mentioned the police must use all the devices while driving, I'm quite sure they don't stop to talk on their radios. I think it is much better to be active while driving long or boring commutes than be in the groggy robot mode.
I really think it is mostly a matter of teaching one's self to be able to PRIORITIZE the tasks..
If you drop the mike, just let everything go except driving to a safe place to stop and recover it. The contact will survive the pause. The same thing applies to a conversation, it is much easier to clearify a conversation than to get a fender fixed, or get out of a ditch.
There are many things that can distract us while driving, the key is to concentrate on the right priority.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AD5PE on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anecdotal, not scientific, but....
In the past month, I've seen wrecks caused by:
1. A woman turning around to smack a kid in the back seat (and ran a red light).
2. A tourist looking for a turn (squinting left to read street signs, sideswiped a car parked on right side of road).
3. A cell phone (guy yakking animatedly, and looked agitated as well, drifted out of his lane into another car).
4. Changing radio (teenager reached down, then rear ended car in front approaching a stop light - the radio part is speculation, but he had just passed me with "thumping bass" rattling my windows, then leaned down and right, then came back up and locked brakes).
5. A head-on when driver spilled hot coffee in their lap, flinched, and crossed centerline.
And the scariest "ride" of my life was leading a parade, riding shotgun with the PD event coordinator. He spent so much time looking at roadside hazards, crowds, parade cutters, etc. and talking to the cops blocking the parade route that
1. twice he nearly missed turns - where the parade route turned and he didn't
2. twice he nearly rear-ended the 6 motorcycle officers who were officially "leading" the parade.
I like the military approach. They have a standard for "inattention to driving". It doesn't matter WHAT caused you to not pay attention - the ticket (accident or not) cites THAT as the violation. I saw it written for running stop signs while talking to passengers, yakking on phones or radios, drunks, etc. Basically, if you do ANYTHING wrong, and an MP thinks you were distracted, they add I/D to the citation and add $$$ to the fine. AFAIK, none of these activities are illegal on military bases in general, just "driving distracted" is. If you can do it and drive well, no problem. Drift lanes change speeds or run stops and they get you twice.
And for sure some people can multitask better than others. Try driving a rig with 18 gears and no syncs in the transmission on a road you've never seen before - yet truckers go millions of miles without having accidents and use CB (or ham radio) constantly. Seems to me it is (or should be) knowing your limitations and the cops making it painful if you don't.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KF6ZLB on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Two points:
1) For a long time and for MANY miles, truckers have been using CB's with handheld microphones while driving HUGE vehicles sometimes with dangerous cargo. I don't recall seeing any truckers driving as bad as many cell phone users. I don't hear about a huge rash of truck accidents caused by CB use. Granted truckers are professional drivers, but I think there is something more distracting about cell phones.
2) Some professions (not just law enforcement) benefit from the use of radio communications. I doubt they will be required to give up the use of radios, and I doubt truckers will give up the use of CB's.
Doug
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mobile Radio Distraction Reply
>by KF6ZLB on August 24, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
For a long time and for MANY miles, truckers have been using CB's with handheld microphones while driving HUGE vehicles sometimes with dangerous cargo. I don't recall seeing any truckers driving as bad as many cell phone users. I don't hear about a huge rash of truck accidents caused by CB use. Granted truckers are professional drivers, but I think there is something more distracting about cell phones.<
::I don't. Truck drivers who do that for a living are professionals, and have a great deal more experience than average motorists, and had to pass a test to get a special license -- a test the average motorist couldn't pass. And the best ones, from what I've seen, actually do pull over to use their cell phones. They jaw on CB when they're on the open road, and not much when they're maneuvering around city streets. That's a huge difference from "mom," who starts yakking as she's pulling out of the driveway. I'd much prefer everyone on the road be as competent a driver as the majority of truckers.
WB2WIK/6
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In Chicago, you can't drive with a cellphone in your hand or eat goose liver patet. So why should you be able to hold a microphone?
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
..and
3) I doubt anyone here will give up Amateur Radio..
oops sorry Doug. :)
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personal comment:
I've worked mobile-CW for 20+ years and never had even a close call.
But mobile-CW is, in many ways, easier than "phone" because it involves no cords or cables. My keyer paddle is mounted between the two front seats, all cables are hidden. No mike cord to get tangled in the steering wheel, no mike to get lost in the seat, etc. It can also be copied easily at very low speaker volume because I can set the tone to be a pitch that my ears respond to very well at much lower levels than a voice.
Best of all, even if operating mobile becomes illegal in some places, cops would never know I was doing it...
WB2WIK/6
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am very glad to see that I am not the only one doing mobile CW! I agree, the microphone is readily seen by police.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AB9LZ on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No need to be sneaky, I doubt the cop would even believe you even if you told him.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
...Why no, Ossifer, I was doing anything wrong, It's just a hands free fibrovlex morse code key I am using between my legs and no i'm not under the alcofluence of incohol.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N8UZE on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At least to me, it seems that the cell phone is more distracting than talking on the radio or to a passenger.
The passenger knows you are driving and so doesn't have an expectation that you are paying attention to his/her conversation (typically but there are exceptions).
People you talk to on the radio, especially VHF/UHF drive time commute, also realize you are driving and so do not expect you to be particularly attentive to what they are saying. They also realize that long pauses may mean you are busy.
Not so with cell phones. People who call you consider their call to be the most important thing you have to do and don't care squat about the fact that you have to pay attention to your driving. They get upset if you don't put your focus on them.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC0RDG on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is unecessary legislation. Less government = better. Don't create a law that effects 100% of the people driving when it might be 5-10% of them that are causing accidents while on the cellphone. Instead, have harsher penalties for a crash where a cellphone was involved. This could be verified by looking at the cellphones call log to see if the person was indeed on a phone call.
Everyones capabilities while driving differ.
I find that old people have a problem driving no matter what - cellphone or not, passenger or not, night or day. I have had plenty of old people stop at intersections with no stop signs, run red lights as if they were green, not yielding when they should, switch lanes without looking, etc. This is not to say that even normal people do this, but by and large, old people scare me on the road more than anything. I believe that after 65 you should have to take a road test every other year and once you hit 70 or 75, yearly. I would be willing to do this myself once I reach the age.
There was a study done which I don't have the link to anymore, but a researcher found that younger people who play video games did much better than a control group at using the cellphone and driving. My wife and I speculated this is so because for the majority of games you have to mulitask alot. This improves your overall ability in life. Same with hand-eye coordination. I play at least 21 hours of video games a week (gameoholic) and I definately have no issues driving and being on the phone at the same time.
For me, using the cellphone and driving is exactly the same as if someone was sitting in the seat right in front of me. For ALOT of people, apparently holding a device to your ear suddenly has an impact on their ability to control the car and think. Somewhat akin to "patting your head and rubbing your tummy". Maybe these people have a hard time eating their food and reading a newspaper too?
I have never been in a accident - caused either by myself or another person crashing into me. I have avoided countless ones because I am always paying attention to my driving. I would say that 40% of the people that make mistakes that I avoid are on their cellphone.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KX8N on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Best of all, even if operating mobile becomes illegal in some places, cops would never know I was doing it... "
You'll have to get a stealth mobile antenna, though ;)
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KE7HLR on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> From WB2WIK
>
> I'd much prefer everyone on the road be as
> competent a driver as the majority of truckers.
Amen! Competent drivers would go a looong way toward solving a whole host of traffic problems...
73 de Dan KE7HLR
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by G0GQK on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Research into driver use of communications, phone and broadcast radio was carried out for the government this year by a university in Britain.
The results were published in newspapers and proved that driver concentration moved from driving his vehicle to concentrating on giving correct answers to questions while using a mobile phone. The result was that most drivers cannot drive and answer questions at the same time, it seems the brain cannot function properly on two separate tasks such as this. The result was that most drivers ran into the back of the vehicle in front. Using a headset or having the phone fixed on the dash didn't help, if the concentration wasn't on driving, bump !
Research showed that a person who was slightly inebriated had more control of his vehicle because they were concentrating solely on trying to drive safely.
Another cause of collisions was when the driver was attempting to change a radio station on the car radio, and inserting or fiddling about with a CD player. As many drivers know in-car entertainment is vital for the daily drive to work, but many car manufacturers fit radio's which have become far too complicated to operate while moving because there are too many buttons, and some are impossible to operate during darkness hours.
Many drivers must have followed a truck which suddenly swerves into the gutter, this is how pedestrians and cyclists are killed. Usually the drivers is fiddling with a CD player, using a mobile phone, or trying to find his cigarettes in a pocket or in the cab.
The way things are moving in road safety, using a two way radio in a vehicle while in motion may be banned in the future.
PS. And as for those clever CW operators who can drive at 50 mph, drive with one hand, send morse on a key fixed to their knee, and read morse at 25 wpm, just too ridiculous !
G0GQK
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N6AJR on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
worse than cell phones, worse than hams even worse than drunk drivers, and most all of us have done it. What am I talking about why.....
Driving while sleepy. ever nod off at the wheel, dive by brail.. ( the botts dots wake you up) know what a rumble strip on the side of a road sounds like.
folks falling asleep at the wheel., the MOST IGNORED safety hazard in the country...
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KE7AKS on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In Portland Oregon a few months back we had a lady run off a rather high bridge and plunge into the river. YEP she was on the cell phone. She survived, luck was on her side.
It can be done, MULTI-TASKING is just a matter of fact to a FIGHTER PILOT. Not much allowance for OOOPS, missed that turn at mach 2, yet they use the 2 way regularly.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA1SCI on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It could be that the nature of a conversation with a passenger is usually trivial, whereas conversations on a cell phone are often not. That is to say that a conversation with a passenger is often simply to pass the time while driving. The passenger is also aware of driving conditions, and will not expect the driver to continue when road conditions get difficult. In the case of the cell phone, presumably the conversation is of a more important nature. In addition, the other party cannot see what the road conditions are, and will not adjust his/her conversation accordingly.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fighter jocks have extensive training. Many at academies "punch out" or "scrub out" So they most certainly CAN mega-multitask.
Many of the Newer fighters are single seaters too.
No R.I.O to do comm, EW, CM, and CCM anymore.
The F-14 tomcat are being replaced by single seat operation.
The wanna be model with the celliod phone crazy glued to her ear is another story!
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee, I just got home after copying CW, PSK and RTTY in my head while mobile using my dash mounted R-390A boatanchor reciever and after I got 18 kills on my sony playstation fighter pilot game, all while driving in the middle of rush hour traffic on the outerbelt!
Using a cell phone while driving? phffffffft. No problem.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KT0DD on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm just waiting for the drunk driver that has been court ordered to an ignition interlock device to be blowing in it while driving & have a wreck. His lawsuits are gonna fly and we'll all be banned from cell phone & ham radio use while driving. All they need is just one more reason to pass another restrictive law. A wise person once said " The more you try to hold onto something, the more it will slip thru your fingers." 73.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N2WEC on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The use of common sense should prevail with everything we as human beings do. Some people from what I have seen in this case would like my radio use restricted if not banned alltogether. This really is arogent as well as ignorant. Common sense people...USE IT. I don't care to remove you choise to make ignorant statements without facts but I do have the right to say you are wrong. Alan you have just written another of your sometimes ignorant articles. Please will you write about what you know best and leave this kind of thing to the "experts". If you did real research you would find many errors in your work. I deal with this kind of thing. Its NOT the radio its the person using it. As an RN dealing in Forensics, I suggest you stick to radio where you usually know what you are talking about. Leave this to those who know.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N0AH on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Operating HF mobile while driving down the road attempting to adjust your screwdriver antenna is whacko-
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AB2MH on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH wrote:
>>Operating HF mobile while driving down the road
>> attempting to adjust your screwdriver antenna is
>> whacko-
Speak for yourself. Quite a few people use automatic controllers. Just push tune and in a few seconds the antenna is tuned. No need to take your eyes off the road, not even for a second.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AI2IA on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have read the original post and every single post up to this point on this very interesting issue of mobile transceiver operation and automotive safety. I have seen more excellent observations than I have seen on eHam.net in a very long time. I thank all who have contributed well-intentioned opinions. I have tried to apply the best of the posts to my operations, and this is my conclusion so far:
I will continue to drive with a rig in my car. For years I have used a dual band 2m/70cm mobile rig mostly during daily commutes with great satisfaction. So, thus far, I intend to keep this one rig only, making sure that it is firmly mounted in a safe location. I will keep my QSOs as brief as possible and limit them to genuine need or assistance to others. If I get a particularly interesting long QSO, I will pull over and park to complete it.
By the way, after 28 years of heavy, aggressive commuting traffic, I have seen a lot of safety oriented bumper stickers, everything from "Don't drive drunk!" to "Speed kills!" The best I ever did see had only two words and simply said, "Stay Alert!"
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KX8N on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
When I went to college, I used to drive down the road while juggling a Coke, a Big Mac, and fries, and fooling with the stereo. There are more dangerous things than ooperating a ham radio.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC0RDG on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"by KC8VWM
Gee, I just got home after copying CW, PSK and RTTY in my head while mobile using my dash mounted R-390A boatanchor reciever and after I got 18 kills on my sony playstation fighter pilot game, all while driving in the middle of rush hour traffic on the outerbelt!
Using a cell phone while driving? phffffffft. No problem."
Sweet!
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KI4OGD on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reading some of these comments involving professional drivers (Truck drivers, Police, etc.), and their ability to drive and do other things with little or no problems. I've come to a conclusion:
Maybe the problem isn't the cell phone, or the radio; maybe it's the driving? Think about it, with few exceptions, Unless you're over the age of 30, a police officer, or a CDL, you have had little or no training in the actual technique of driving. Because of this, we baerely know how to drive the car, much less do anything at the same time. Older drivers know that driving becomes less and less mentally challenging the more you do it, eventually becoming to the point that driving well is almost second nature. This ability only comes with time, but it can be sped up with proper driver training, which is, for the most part, not done, unless you are required to attend a traffic school by a judge, or take professional driving courses.
Unfortunately, this theory of better training solving the cell phone issue applies to almost every single cause of accidents. Fact of the matter is, we don't train our drivers.
PS-I'm well under the age of 30 (a few years from 20, actually), do not have a CDL, and am not a cop. I am not a good driver, but I can only get better, and am working to improve my skill. I do not operate my radio or use my cell phone while driving, and the one time I did use my cell phone, I had the one accident I was involved in.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KP4HE on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I too agree with KI4FJT. Some are not as skilled to just do one task at a time as DRIVING. What would make them think they can do two.
I'm a driving opperator. Done it many years and won't remove my HF from the SUV.
Have you seen a Police Car? (cell, radio, laptop, camera, and more) They can do this at high speeds too.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anyone remember where dimmer switches used to be in cars?
Why not put a momentary switch down there for hands free CW use?
QLF de K8MHZ
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Speak for yourself. Quite a few people use automatic controllers. Just push tune and in a few seconds the antenna is tuned. No need to take your eyes off the road, not even for a second."
I think he was talking about the kind you have to screw up and down by hand.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4JF on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Interesting question as to why a cell phone conversation is more distracting than a conversation with a passenger."
It is not. Studies have shown that the distraction is the conversation, not the device (or lack thereof).
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4JF on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"However, your reactions slow
as you age, heck, I mostly open carry now
to gain the extra fractions of a second to get on
a target, if necessary. "
That's why we older folk should drive faster, more responsive cars... to make up for the loss in our own reaction time. I'm doing my part.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N9USR on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I see it we all have to drive the car truck or whatever first and then play radio.To much traffic out not to in other words common sense works most times.Being a retired truck driver I have seen a lot of nuts out there but more times than not the hams I talkd with would put the mike down when traffic made it a wise to.Like my flight instructor said fly the airplane first it works drving also 73 N9USR
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KA3JHG on August 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that anything you do in your vehicle while in motion could be hazardous because it distracts and splits your attention to more then the driving at hand.
Please also consider that the police officers and fire fighters are not blessed with super powers of splitting their attention between operation of emergency vehicles and their radios as well as cellphones ( some departments do use cellphones or Nextel type of communicators ) while not only in motion but usually at higher speeds then the surrounding traffic. Not all emergency vehicles have more then one person in them to split the duties of vehicle operation to one person and the communication duties to another. Also throw in intensive map reading.
The whole subject with the implications is a can of worms that could very well be served up to you as the innocent bystander.
Al Meekins - ka3jhg
Timonium, MD
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by NA4IT on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KI4OGD hit the nail squarely on the head and sunk it to the hilt!
"Reading some of these comments involving professional drivers (Truck drivers, Police, etc.), and their ability to drive and do other things with little or no problems. I've come to a conclusion:
Maybe the problem isn't the cell phone, or the radio; maybe it's the driving? Think about it, with few exceptions, Unless you're over the age of 30, a police officer, or a CDL, you have had little or no training in the actual technique of driving."
A commercial tour bus driver has to have a CDL. A driver who owns an RV that is a converted commercial tour bus only has to have a regular driver's license.
See anything wroung with that picture?
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Driving comes first"
And that is the crux of the biscuit.
I would hazard to guess that the people that do really stupid things while yakking and driving are the types that place the utmost importance on the telephone. They are probably the type that would go into a burning building to answer a ringing phone.
Some of us have got to the point where no matter WHAT we are doing we will drop what we are doing and answer the phone. The phone and driving both can't be #1.
I feel that using a radio with a mic is safer. You don't have the mic stuck to your head limiting your vision and keeping you from turning you head and being aware of your surroundings. It is just as easy for me to set the mic down while driving and I won't miss any of the conversation. If it takes a few seconds to respond the people I talk to on the radio are used to dead air from drivers. Try putting a cell phone down mid sentence while talking to a YL or an XYL and prepare for the fury that will ensue.
My observations have been that those that yak on the phone while driving tend to just be plain bad drivers. They tailgate, charge into intersections like they aren't going to stop, speed in heavy traffic, disobey rules for turning lanes, park wherever they feel etc.
In short they think their existence trumps the law. They think they are so important that they should in no way have to wait for anyone or anything.
Cell phones in cars have just brought the situation to a head.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AA4PB on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I expect a major part of the issue is the amount of time involved. Cell phones are on average more distracting that ham radio because the typical cell user spends more time talking on the phone than the average ham spends talking on or adjusting his radio. Police and commercial users typically spend even less time communicating or adjusting their radios. Simply listening via a speaker is the least distracting.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W2RDD on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Cell-phone conversations, personal or business-related can be intense and distracting. Amateur radio conversations, rarely. I've been side-swiped once and rear ended at a red light once. Both times the individuals continued with their phone conversations after the accident. I get away from those huge motorhomes on wheels as quickly as possible. I shudder when I see what appears to be an octogenerian at the wheel of one of those monster rigs.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pull over or let someone else drive.
Anything else is dangerous to you and others. And may be illegal.
If you operate CW while driving you are a first class idiot.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KX8N on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Think about it, with few exceptions, Unless you're over the age of 30, a police officer, or a CDL, you have had little or no training in the actual technique of driving"
I don't know about other states, but in Ohio, unless you are 18 years old or older, you are required to take driver's training before you can get your license.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AA9KH on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is one and only one simple rule about operating motor vehicles and it should be heeded by all persons resonsible for its safe operation at all times. Please, operate your motorized vehicle safely and responsibly. Multi-tasking, distracted driving, active partcipation in a hobby - be it ham radio, bird watching, astronomy or alligator wrestling - MUST, repeat must, take a back seat. Too bad we do not live in a "pefect" world.
Paul Segal, W9EEA, authored "The Amateur's Code" in 1928 and it has appeared in many places since, including virtually every edition of the A.R.R.L. Handbook. If we, as hams, challenged ourselves to live up to Paul's ideals, I feel cetain amateur radio as a hobby would have a MUCH different face than the one we wear today.
CU fm/on the rd.
73,
Jay, AA9KH
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KF6ZLB on August 24, 2006
"For a long time and for MANY miles, truckers have been using CB's with handheld microphones while driving HUGE vehicles sometimes with dangerous cargo.
"I don't recall seeing any truckers driving as bad as many cell phone users. I don't hear about a huge rash of truck accidents caused by CB use. Granted truckers are professional drivers, but I think there is something more distracting about cell phones."
>> Good point - and there may be some simple logic behind this observation. Compare the ergonomics and design attributes of a typical cell phone with a CB radio or an amateur rig.
*** BTW, truckers are required to have a CDL license and by the nature of their job, are much better drivers than us "4 wheelers" and are accomplished multi-taskers. I have a friend who drove car carriers for 30 years and went for a ride with him one day to drop off some cars. What a difference being in an 75 foot long rig looking down at the highway below and having to contend with the "zoo" of impatience all around you.
>> The first distraction is dialing the number - one's eyes are usually diverted temporarily and are not constantly on the road. Most people are not using a cell phone with a Bluetooth headset and don't have or bother to use voice dialing and speakerphone features.
>> The second distraction is not so obvious and involves the design and miniaturized ergonomics of most cell phones.
Besides simply having to hold the phone against the side of your face and the obvious loss of a hand to hold the phone, the small speakers used with 99% of today's cell phone receivers are very directional and require the phone be pointed right at the ear canal, otherwise hearing can be difficult. So there is a constant need to focus one's attention on keeping the phone aligned with the ear canal. At the same time, there is a natural tendency to to talk towards the mic at the opposite end of the phone - like you would with a regular land-line phone.
** Conclusion: The combination of attempting to listen AND speak into a "radio" that's the size of a pack of cigarettes is not the most ergonomically friendly thing to do while operating a motor vehicle at speed.
This distraction is not present while operating most Amateur or CB radios. With a PTT mic located in a readily accessible place on the dash or on the headliner (truck) and decent receive audio coming from a 3" or larger speaker, most operators can drive with one hand and operate the mic with the other without impairing their ability to drive safely.
The exceptions are - in my opinion:
> Hams that mount multiple radios on the dash or other places that block their view of the road;
> Amateur mobile installations that are so large they can be likened to "mobile entertainment centers". I saw an installation on eHam a year or so ago that was made from wood with multiple shelves, mounted in the center console of a pickup. Can you imagine how a police report would read if a ham with this sort of installation was involved in an accident and a witness indicated he /she was using their radio before the incident occurred?
Per usual, common sense is always required and never goes out of style.
Chris, WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KG6NJW on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been an auto claims adjuster for well over 30 years. A few comments:
First, I don't know where people got the idea that commercial truck drivers have less accidents than auto drivers, but it isn't true. In general they are involved in more accidents, and the accidents they are involved in are much more serious, and have a much higher fatality rate.
Second, there are two main causes of accidents. The first is inattention, usually due to changing the radio channel, putting a different CD in the player, lighting a cigarette, looking at girls, and yes, talking on cell phones. The second, which was rare 30 years ago but has become very common today is what I call "driving with depraved indifference." These are the people who make a sudden lane change across all four lanes to get to an off-ramp (incidentally, this is often done deliberately, to lose any undercover officers or rival gang members that they think might be tailing them), the people who weave in and out of traffic at a high rate of speed, forcing others to jam on their brakes to avoid a collision, etc. It has occurred to me more than once that young people drive today as if they were playing a video game, not engaged in a real-life situation. What we need (at least in California) is not more laws but more police to enforce the laws. As the number of police officers per capita has declined over the years, people have become much more bold in breaking traffic laws (especially running red lights), knowing that they have a very small chance of being caught.
Lastly, the biggest distraction that cell phones cause isn't the talking or even the dialing, it's writing down information while you're talking on the phone.
Incidentally, I once was passed by a woman driving a van at about 75 mph, weaving in and out of traffic; when she passed me I realized that she was steering with her elbows while eating a bowl of chili!
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
".....I don't know where people got the idea that commercial truck drivers have less accidents than auto drivers, but it isn't true. In general they are involved in more accidents, and the accidents they are involved in are much more serious, and have a much higher fatality rate....."
Your statement is made from the point of view of an insurance adjuster. The first statement is misleading since any auto driver involved in an auto-truck accident almost always see big $$$ when they look at the truck AND THE NAME OF THE COMPANY ON IT. If most people thought they could get a windfall from a big corporation, these days they would try to.
When you look at that statistic from the view of who was at fault, it is generally agreed that the 'professional driver' is, but 95% of the time that is NOT true. The police officers I've talked to through the years tell me that in most of the car vs. truck accidents they've investigated, it is the driver of the car that caused the accident, not the truck driver. I've spoken to many even though in the twenty years I've been driving tractor trailers, I've only had a few minor scrapes.
As far as your last statements, a truck which is much larger and 20 times heavier than most cars will cause much more damage in bad accidents. As far as being more serious and having higher fatalities, that is also questionable. Truck drivers are trained to avoid situations that could cause accidents, just as they are trained to look and head for the areas of least damage if they are involved in one of those situations.
I would suggest to you to research ALL the areas you are talking about before talking--you'll make yourself look more knowledgeable than you did. You made statements from one point of view only, but there are several points of view to take into account here, not only the point of view of the insurance adjuster.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB9JTK on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Professional drivers (truckers) have more accidents than 'the rest of us' ? I could believe that.
But
how far does a professional driver (trucker) drive in a year ? 100,000 miles ? I drive about 10,000 in a busy year. So unless professional drivers are getting in 10 times the accidents as me, they are probably safer.
And I have never been required to have my heart tested to get a car driving license. And here in Florida, you can be totally blind and cenile and get your license renewed. All you have to do is dial a 1-900 phone number and they send you a new license.
And a little news for people in Florida. No longer can you drive a motorhome with the same license as a car. Now anything over 8000 pounds gross weight requires a class D even if it is not commercial. Yep, driving a 3/4 ton pickup now requires this license (which is just more multiple choice questions).
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N0AH on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, my screw driver antenna is manual.....the MFJ-UPUr. I have to turn the dial to get it to go up or down- Knocked at the back of my truck's glass to reach it-
I think after using my MFJ-antenna, I feel screwed.
And for all you drivers thinking that your screwdriver antenna's auto tune button works, har!
Doesn't MFJ make one of those? Or is it FAKE one of those?
I AM NOT MFJ BASHING!!! Just bashing Martin-
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4IA on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>And as for those clever CW operators who can drive at 50 mph, drive with one hand, send morse on a key fixed to their knee, and read morse at 25 wpm, just too ridiculous !<<<
Guilty as charged. It is not that hard. My paddles are attached to the center console.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AB2MH on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My paddles are to the right of the shifter. I placed them in the most ergonomic position possible.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by AB2MH on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH wrote:
> Yes, my screw driver antenna is manual.....the MFJ-
> UPUr. I have to turn the dial to get it to go up or
> down- Knocked at the back of my truck's glass to
> reach it-
> I think after using my MFJ-antenna, I feel screwed.
> And for all you drivers thinking that your
> screwdriver antenna's auto tune button works, har!
> Doesn't MFJ make one of those? Or is it FAKE one of
> those?
> I AM NOT MFJ BASHING!!! Just bashing Martin-
MFJ - More F'in Junk.
MFJ does make an auto tune controller but it's different. It doesn't rely on finding the lowest SWR, you have to do that yourself. Rather, it has a display to count the turns on the coil. You can store different positions so that for a band change you just recall from the controller's memory.
The complete auto tune controllers (N2VZ Turbo Tuner, W4RT antenna boss) are different. They have a SWR bridge built in and simply turn the antenna up and down until it finds the lowest SWR then stops. They use the tuner port on the radio and CI-V interface so that you just hit "tune" on the radio and the action starts.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W5HTW on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone said, "I am very capable of multitasking and driving." And that is precisely the person the rest of us need to watch out for. Every one of those cell phone users, shavers, breakfast eaters, and book readers, will say exactly the same thing, even AFTER they kill someone.
Studies released a couple of years ago, probably by the National Transportation and Safety Board or perhaps by NIH, showed that when one talks on the cell phone, on a regular phone in the office or home, or to a passenger in a vehicle, two things happen. One, the mind diverts some needed attention to the new task. Two, the vision actually narrows. The eyes refocus, becoming, at freeway speeds while on the cell phone, "tunnel vision." Try it! Put your favorite TV show on, then grab the phone and call your friend and chat a while. You'll be stunned if you think you have full attention on both! You don't!
Time and again I have seen people on cell phones drive merrily along their way, while others get OUT of their way. If you could ask that person later if he or she was a safe driver, the answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Because everyone else avoided them! But they don't know that, as they didn't see it! I saw a woman just a couple of day ago on the freeway chatting away on her cell phone. She was in the middle lane of a three lane roadway, and ahead, traffic came to a halt. She didn't see it!! She barreled along, until it was nearly too late, and then it dawned on her. She hit the brakes, swerved into the lane to her right, cutting off a car, then straightened and kept going. But she caused at least four other vehicles, including my own, to have to take evasive action. She didn't know it. She would go home and never dream she almost created a major accident, and would have, except for the SAFE drivers around her.
This is not an isolated incident. It happens often. And if YOU are driving along the freeway using a cell phone, or perhaps a ham radio, you may never be aware of the situations YOU caused, because others, more alert, took evasive action. They were the smart drivers, the defensive ones, who kept you out of an accident.
This happens repeatedly. And the guy or gal on the phone cruises away, thinking he/she is the best driver in the world, and can do all sorts of things while buzzing down the freeway at 65 mph, in heavy traffic. BULL! But thanks to other drivers who actually ARE better, that person goes home without a scratch on his car or his body.
Maybe three years ago, on a lonely road, no traffic at all except me, I reached down to check the frequency on my 706, so I could move to a net on 20 meters. I glanced up a couple of seconds later and the front wheels of my vehicle were on the very edge of the ditch. Not a deep ditch, and had I run into it, I would not have been hurt, but I would have been stuck.
Another time I just pressed the Scan button on the dual band rig, and checked to see that it was scanning. I didn't even pick up the microphone. And I glanced back out the windshield to see I had just run through a stop sign at 25 miles an hour. Well, it's a back road, no traffic. Lucky me.
My accident/ticket record? One speed warning ticket in 1972. That's it. Never even been IN an accident as a passenger, let alone as a driver, my fault or otherwise. Been driving for 50 years, quite a bit of it professionally, not only here but in other countries. Yes, I think, and I have the record to prove it, I am a very good driver. And I can't multitask behind the wheeel! And I KNOW it!
These are not isolated incidents for me, and they aren't for anyone who drives distracted, no matter what the distraction is. I saw a lady police officer, off duty in her patrol car, looking at the baby strapped safely into the baby seat on the passenger side of her vehicle. She was trying to put the pacifier back in his mouth. I blew a vicious toot on my very loud horn at her, just as her car drifted from the far left lane onto the right shoulder, while she is playing with the baby. She didn't like me, as her expression showed, but I may have saved the life of that baby.
We use the excuse "The police do it." Oh? They are not changing channels, tuning the VFOs, checking the SWR. They are not placing DTMF patch calls. They are not talking for three minutes on the radio. They make very short, quick transmissions, hear very short, quick, precise transmissions. They use the radio very sparingly, not in the least bit like ham radio.
Recently, though, police are more and more involved with the use of cell phones while they are driving. I believe cell phone laws have to apply to them as well. I know there are certain official calls they have to make, but they, too, need to pull over to make them. And I suspect the majority of the time you see a cop on a cell phone, it is a personal call. That's just plain wrong. They, too, have diverted attention.
So I watch out for them, too. Defensive driving does not mean driving 45 mph down the freeway. But it does mean being aware of everything around you, not just next to you, but many car lengths in front and behind, and noticing if that woman if using her call phone, or that guy is shaving, or that couple is fighting.
As DEC of this county, I monitor public safety radio as well as ham radio, while in my vehicle. But the key word is 'monitor.' If I need to select a ham channel and transmit, to call a buddy, I do indeed pull onto the shoulder, select the correct channel, and give him a call. To be honest, once on channel, I may pull back onto the highway and talk to him. And if I do, I become quite aware my attention definitely IS divided. If traffic is heavy, I will likely give up the driving and return to the shoulder to carry on the conversation. If I am IN heavy traffic, I am not going to answer a call anyway, on the radio or the cell phone!
Ed
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W1RKW on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You're a danger to others when you don't have full attention of the road and both hands on the steering wheel. PERIOD.
I've been accident free for the 25 years I've been licensed because I take driving a missle very seriously.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
">>>And as for those clever CW operators who can drive at 50 mph, drive with one hand, send morse on a key fixed to their knee, and read morse at 25 wpm, just too ridiculous !<<<
Guilty as charged. It is not that hard. My paddles are attached to the center console. "
----------------------------------
I'm sure you have honorable intentions, OM, but..really!
It's just too dangerous.
After you've seen someone die under your bedroom window from one of these accidents of negligence, you wouldn't touch a key OR a mike!
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Try it! Put your favorite TV show on, then grab the phone and call your friend and chat a while."
Are you for real?
Who in their right mind would make a phone call when their favorite TV show is on? No one I know. TV is WAY to important for a call that can be made afterward while picking up the kids from Youth Group.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Seems like Motorola designed radios more ergonomically correct with actual mobile driving conditions in mind"
NO. Commercial radios have no need for the multitude of features that hams demand in their radios. The manufacturers mentioned in the subject post also design commercial radios that are just as ergonomically correct as Motorola's. If hams would quit whining that they can't crossband from 1.2GHz to 49MHz while transmitting their "roger" beep and lighting their cigarette and just "get back to basics", their radios would be as ergonomically correct as the commercial ones.
Tom KB5DPE
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on August 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Incidentally, I once was passed by a woman driving a van at about 75 mph, weaving in and out of traffic; when she passed me I realized that she was steering with her elbows while eating a bowl of chili!"
Interesting story, but I'd like to know how, when a car passes you, "weaving in and out of traffic" at 75 mph, no less, you could tell what was in the container she was supposedly eating from. Sounds like she's not the only driver that needs to pay attention to DRIVING!!! By the way, that chili must have had quite an aroma! DX chili?
Tom KB5DPE
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA8VBX on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The city I work for has a ordiance for distracted driving, and can issue a ticket. The distraction can be cellphone,reading the paper, talking on the radio, even picking your nose. Basically it was written because people were not paying attention while dialing/talking on cellphones, but was written in a way that it cover anything that can distract from you driving.
Myself, I was stuck in a traffic jam, in front of me was a GrandAm, in front of her was a cube truck. She was talking on the phone. The cube truck moved up about 10', not paying close attention the GrandAm driver hit the gas and plowed into the truck. Well after the smoke from the air bags cleared, she was ok, but the front of the car needed major work, the cube truck had a little damage, guess who got the ticket for distracted driving, plus at fault for the accident.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K3XT on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Endless discussions about the dangers of Amateur Radio. If it is not concerns about being distracted in a vehicle as in this post, then it is concerns about RF radiation for yourself or neighbors, and how about that ugly and dangerous tower you might have. Not to mention interference to countless personal electronic devices.
All these sins can be solved by one move, ban Amateur Radio. Get rid of it, who needs it. Then we all can feel safe and secure.
|
|   |
|
Don't block the path of inquiry.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Endless discussions about the dangers of Amateur Radio."
Think about it positively for a minute. The purpose here at eHam.net is discussion. I for one hope that the disussion about the dangers of amateur radio continue for as long as their is amateur radio. Why? Because you can always learn from discussion. If you feel that you know all there is to know about radio safety, then you are one step away from an accident. Always take the time to read, to listen and to learn, you'll be glad you did.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB9NJB on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me see, using the cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving with a drunk. All in all, I'll take the drunk.
Alan, did you once own CW Electronics here in Denver?
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Let me see, using the cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving with a drunk. All in all, I'll take the drunk"
I'll BE the drunk! It's getting so it's a lot more fun than amateur radio. Too bad.
Tom
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
".....Commercial radios have no need for the multitude of features that hams demand in their radios. The manufacturers mentioned in the subject post also design commercial radios that are just as ergonomically correct as Motorola's. If hams would quit whining that they can't crossband from 1.2GHz to 49MHz while transmitting their "roger" beep and lighting their cigarette and just "get back to basics", their radios would be as ergonomically correct as the commercial ones."
Tom, you come across as a disgrundled extra class that is coming down on those who use the VHF/UHF bands. I don't know of anyone on the 1.2 GHZ band who use that band while mobile, and to 49 MHZ?? That isn't even a ham band. Also, those who are on the VHF/UHF bands don't need the elaborate setups that HF users are demanding on their rigs--and those HF rigs are where the 'elaborate control capabilities' are currently being demanded.
How about standing back and looking at the entire hobby instead of throwing pointless barbs at other hams just because you don't care for the bands they're operating on?
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by W4JLE on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Alan, I am surprised you get out of bed every morning. Just think of the dangers involved. Studys have shown that most accidents happen in the home.
Between your Paul Revere cries of "The mag mounts are killers..." and this nonsense, one wonders about your phobic life.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K7LRB on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I rarely respond to, in fact, rarely read the mostly trivial, irrelevant posts here in the "Articles" section of eHam. However, this thread caught my attention because I do opertate mobile CW, have for over 30 years. Primarily illiciting my response is the comment by Chip, W1YW, "If you operate CW while driving you are a first class idiot." Chip, you just called me a first class idiot and I take extreme offense to that.
I offer the following observations:
1. It is not uncommon for people (human nature) to disparage an activity in which they lack the skill or ability to engage. It is a common "defense mechanism" used to defend one's own delicate ego. Case in point: Several years ago I flew an insturment approach to an airport when the weather was at "minimums", specifically, less than one half mile visibility. A pilot made the comment, "Anyone who flys in this weather is a first class idiot". In HIS case, this was probably a true statement.... in HIS case. If you agree with him, think about it next time you airline it somewhere and the weather is not crystal clear. Think about those "first class idiots" up front!
2. Driving is, in my opinion, an extremely BORING activity. It is purely a means to an end. I think most people will agree. Otherwise, why do we have ANY peripheral devices in a vehicle, such as, FM radio, XM radio, CD and/or tape player, etc.? If you want to ban cellphone use while driving, why not ban ANY potentially distracting device? What about people listening to "talk radio" while driving? What about driving in rain? THAT is a well documented hazard!
3. What is the difference between listening to a radio commentator and listening to CW? For those lacking in CW skills there is a significant difference. It poses no problem whatsoever for those proficient in CW. As for sending, I NEVER look at the key when transmitting.
4. Can ANYONE show DOCUMENTED evidence of a person causing an accident while operating mobile CW?
5. In that I have experienced both, I find cellphone use far more distracting/attention demanding than mobile CW. In fact, when driving, the cellphone remains OFF.
6. Allow me to "quarter turn" this a bit. I can proffer that mobile CW, in fact, ENHANCES safety while driving. Again, to me, driving is extremely BORING. I look upon it as a necessary, albeit, unpleasant task. During periods when I did not have CW available, I often found it difficult to stay awake while driving. As someone else posted, this is perhaps more hazardous than cellphone use. When I operate CW, I am first "interested" in what I am doing and second, I am acutely aware of the need to pay attention to the driving. In other words, my "alertness" is enhanced by the very fact that I must not allow myself to compromise safety. Simply put, when operating mobile CW, drooping eyes are not a problem!
7. As with ANY activity, there are ways to minimize risks. When in heavy traffic, the radios go off, ALL radios, including the FM. When driving in rain, the ham radio goes off. The FM also goes off unless it is useful for weather/road condition reports. The ham radio is pre-set for CW use. Subsequently, any "necessary" functions can be performed by feel with only the occassional, split second glance at frequency. Obviously, once in QSO, even this is unnecessary.
BOTTOM LINE: If you lack the skill or ability or proficiency to operate mobile CW, don't do it. If you lack the skill or ability or proficiency to fly an airplane, don't do it. If you lack the skill or ability or proficiency to operate a motorcycle, don't do it. If you lack the skill or ability or proficiency to dive into a pool from a 50' diving tower, DON'T DO IT! If you lack the skill or ability or proficiency to engage in ANY activity, don't do it, AND, don't knock those who can.
I find that there are people posting on eHam who make astute observations, valid and cohesive points, convincing arguments and, as important, literate remarks. I have typically found Chip to be such a person. However, when ANYONE makes a sweeping, disparaging comment such as, "anyone who blah blah blah is a first class idiot" my respect or any credibility for that person just went in the toilet.
73, CU on CW/m
de Larry
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"6. Allow me to "quarter turn" this a bit. I can proffer that mobile CW, in fact, ENHANCES safety while driving."
Larry,
Some people have the ability to multi-task safely and it sounds like you're one of them. The problem is, we're dealing with AVERAGES.
Safety laws can't be effective if they only take the abilities of 10% of the population into account. As a mobile CW operator, I bet you're in a class of about 1 in 1,000,000 or 0.000001%, so naturally you don't hear about many accidents involving mobile CW operators!
Allowing cell phone and CW operation while driving reminds me of another unwise decision. Some states such as New Hampshire allow motorcyclists to ride without a helmet. That's OK for the rider, it's his or her life. Like they say, "Live Free or Die".....and in this case, it's a distinct possibility it will be the latter. Personally, I think riding without a helmet is foolish and injury statistics back my opinion.
Unfortunately, I've also witnessed too many people completely and utterly distracted using a cell phone while driving. The next time I see a guy on a cell phone wrenching his neck to check for traffic while entering a major highway, it will be too soon - and probably too late for some poor SOB that he hits.
So for the average Joe, I don't believe operating CW - or using a cell phone the size of a small pack of smokes while driving a moving vehicle is safe - both for the operator and for other people on the road.
Chris, WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An interesting research study conducted by the DOT.
"A sample of 24 male subjects drove a car on a 1.5-mile closed course without traffic to collect measures on judgments of gap size (possible vs. impossible to clear), number of gaps actually cleared successfully, total course travel time (interpreted as speed), and control inputs (steering and foot controls and associated lateral and longitudinal accelerations).
The telephone communications task was a paced grammatical reasoning task in which the driver heard a short sentence followed by the letters "A" and "B" where each sentence claimed to describe the order of the letter pair that followed. The driver decided whether the sentence was true or false and responded accordingly. Examples are provided below: "
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/wireless/c5.htm
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Worth mentioning... (Same DOT Study)
"This study empirically supports the professional driver's intuition that a concurrent task, like voice communications, can break the monotony of driving and help keep the driver awake. This study is also somewhat unique in that the test participants were professional heavy truck drivers. This is a population that, compared to the driving public at large, is perhaps more uniform in terms of selection and training, has more extensive driving experience, and perhaps has more experience driving and concurrently engaging in voice communications tasks (e.g., talking on a Citizen's Band or CB radio)."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/wireless/c5.htm
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC0KP on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Been operating mobile for 35 years now. First mobile rig was a vibrator supply Lafayette CB. Never had a close call operating. Did have a scary moment when I was in a wreck on US 6 near Bryant Street in Denver in 1968 when the FMTRU80D dynamoter trunk mount radio pulled loose on impact. It went flying through the back seat like it was not there and struck my seat in the back. It pulled 4 7/16 bolts right out of the trunk floor to start its trip.
I was not injured but my 62 Valiant car was not so lucky. The 80D still worked after getting it reconnected. Used it to call for police.
Moral of the story is to mount every radio securely. I have know a lot of hams who just throw the rig on the seat and call it good. In an accident, it could become a projectile, propelled by impact or even an airbag.
73s
KC0KP
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC0KP on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to add that for 18 years I worked as an overnight photographer for Channel 9 in Denver. I averaged 40,000 miles a year on the streets. I monitored 120 police and fire channels in 9 scanners, 3 two way radios, did traffic reports for KHOW without so much as a moving violation or accident my fault. Was in two fender benders that the other guy got the ticket. Ironically, both happened on my way home from work with the radios off.
I do know that this is the exception to the rule. I now drive fire trucks so I know how people do not pay attention anymore. This I think is a new phenomena. Driving in the 60s and 70s when cars had only AM radios and no air conditioning it was a lot simpler to navigate, at least in Denver.
73s
KC0KP
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on August 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It should also be noted that studies have shown the problem to be the talking, not the cellphone. Talking with a passenger in the car has exactly the same effect as talking to someone on the phone. Are they going to mandate solo driving?"
The problem with the above statement is that it doesn't take in account DIALING the phone or picking up the phone to see who is calling. I don't care how many so called surveys claim this and that. Anyone with a half ass brain can observe that cell phone use impairs driving. As far as allowing some people to use cell phones because they can do it and still drive near perfectly - that's absurd. You might as well claim that some people should be allowed to speed because they are good at it! Ridiculous.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K7LRB on August 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for your response Chris, WA1RNE. You make an excellent point about averages, a point well taken.
I absolutely agree with you about a motorcycle helmet, it is foolish to ride without one. HOWEVER, I disagree with helmet laws.... except for minors. I also disagree with seatbelt laws.... again, except for minors. Bear in mind that my personal definition of a minor is anyone under the age of 30. If, by age 30, you still wish to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, knock yourself out, perhaps literally! Ditto for seatbelt use. They have a well proven record of saving lives in the event of an accident, but if you choose to ignore the facts, I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to attempt to regulate stupidity. Perhaps a dubious coorelation, but I suspect that people who drive without a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet are also likely to engage in other unsafe activities.
To N6HBJ: "Anyone with a half ass brain can observe that cell phone use impairs driving."
I am sure you have no problem observing that.
"You might as well claim that some people should be allowed to speed because they are good at it! Ridiculous."
Ridiculous indeed. Speeding is against the law.
73,
de Larry
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on August 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I installed a mobile ham radio in my first car before I learned to drive that car. Over the past 40 years of mobile ham radio operation, I have survived by following a simple rule:
" Driving is Priority Level #1 ,
talking on ham radio is Priority Level #10 "
I worked in the VHF mobile phone industry, and later the cell phone industry for many years, so I have also had a phone in the car for the past 30 years. I find that the full duplex phone conversation is much more distracting than any PTT radio communication. Some of the extra distraction of telephone duplex happens due to the way our mind's eye visualizes when conversing with others, and our effort to live up to the expectations and timing of a fluid duplex conversation.
For the most part, listening to a mobile ham radio is not much different than listening to a car stereo or AM broadcast talk radio.
Picking up the microphone to talk becomes second nature to most mobile ops, just like the old stick shift. The most distracting part is when the operator/driver is actually talking, that is when the mind wanders from the road while using the mind's eye to visualize what to say next.
Be ready to drop the mic and drive.
Bonnie KQ6XA
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N7SPY on August 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Alan, magnificent article. Your advice is definitely something I will apply to my mobile operation.
I have used both my cellphone and my 2M radio while driving and I must confess that I feel much more at ease with the radio than with the cellphone.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on August 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I find that the full duplex phone conversation is much more distracting than any PTT radio communication. Some of the extra distraction of telephone duplex happens due to the way our mind's eye visualizes when conversing with others, and our effort to live up to the expectations and timing of a fluid duplex conversation."
I am sure that it takes more concentration to use a cell phone than a ham radio. For one thing the person on the other end of a cell phone has IMO a greater expectation of getting undivided attention than a person on the other end of a radio. Just my opinion.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think Mark has got it right. A phone conversation IS more distracting than following a two way radio conversation. Why? Putting is simply, possibly because the phone conversation is constantly interactive while the two way radio conversation is not--it is an alternating one way conversation AND the two way radio user tends to keep the conversation simpler and more direct.
Yeah, Mark, I know that is more or less what you said, I just said it in an extremely simple way that more shmoes can understand. ;-)
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4JF on August 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Anyone with a half ass brain can observe that cell phone use impairs driving. As far as allowing some people to use cell phones because they can do it and still drive near perfectly - that's absurd. You might as well claim that some people should be allowed to speed because they are good at it! Ridiculous. "
Absolutely NOT ridiculous. What you are saying is like sying someone was killed with a baseball bat so we should confiscate all baseball bats.
It is a fact that some people drive safely with a cellphone. It is also a fact that many do not. The crime needs to be driving unsafely, so that the enforcement stays with the problem, not cellphone use, which may or may not address the driving problem. (In my opinion, these cellphone laws are just "feelgood legislation".)
As for the speeding, most law enforcement will not bother someone a little over a posted limit, as long as he or she is driving safely. After all, there are many, many factors that affect a safe driving speed: weather, type of car, skill of the driver, traffic, road conditions, health of the driver, and many more. Numbers on a sign on the side of the road is NOT among them.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WB2NVY on August 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Nowadays I can tell when the driver in front of me is on their cell phone by the way their car drifts one way or the other in their lane, followed by a sharp correction. Just like a drunk driver. "
ABSOLUTELY! I observe EXACTLY the same thing, especially among tractor trailer drivers near where I live. You can see their phones held up to their heads. Here in New York State we have a law against driving with a hand held cell phone, but it's not enforced. Actually none of our traffic laws are enforced. So, in this state anyway, making anything illegal while driving would have no effect. So people, feel free to drive drunk, or with cell phones, or no headlights & run all the stopsigns you want because it's ok. You might kill somebody, but nobody's going to stop you from doing it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4JF on August 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""Nowadays I can tell when the driver in front of me is on their cell phone by the way their car drifts one way or the other in their lane, followed by a sharp correction. Just like a drunk driver. "
That is correct. But if you will look closely, you will also see people using the cellphone and driving properly.
You will also see people behaving exactly the same way while tuning their stereo, putting in a CD, reading a map on the seat beside them. Are you going to ban stereos in cars, and prohibit the possession of a map? No difference.
Again, it is the misuse of an item, not the use of an item that is the problem.
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K0RGR on August 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find cell phones extremely distracting, and I will pull over to dial one. Even talking on it is distracting for some reason - maybe because I'm always having an important conversation on the cellphone.
On the other hand, I've never found ham radio any more distracting than the broadcast radio. In fact, I'm 1000% more likely to kill somebody after listening to Limbaugh or Hannity than I am when I'm doing mobile CW - no kidding!
But listening to the local repeater or a little code? Nope, no way. Been doing it for close to 40 years, and the only accident I've had was when the radios were off.
(Note:the first thing the cop did was check to see if they were on, however!).
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on August 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Man this topic has sure generated a lot of responses. Alan makes some very good points about driving safely. However, as some others have pointed out, I think safe driving has a lot more to do with the driver than the equipment he or she is operating. Cops and truckdrivers are just as human as I am and yet we don't hear news stories about how they're causing a lot of car accidents.
I think the reason cellphones get such a bad rap is because they're ubiquitous. Everyone and his teenager has one. It's just another thing that CAN cause a distraction. Whether or not it DOES is up to the driver.
Let's face it - ANYTHING can be a distraction: A swimsuit model on a billboard. The cruise control buttons. The stereo. Food. Drink. Even the signs posted on the highway by the DOT can be distracting (especially the ones with scrolling text!). Reaching for change for the @#$&* tollbooth. A jogger in her short-shorts and sports bra. Passengers (especially kids). Advertising. I can go on and on.
Two words sum up the bulk of the problems in the world today: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4JF on August 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think the reason cellphones get such a bad rap is because they're ubiquitous. Everyone and his teenager has one. It's just another thing that CAN cause a distraction. Whether or not it DOES is up to the driver."
Correct. With the majority of drivers using the things now, it is inevitable that bad drivers are using them as well.
Before cellphone days, we just said "idiot driver", today we say ")&^(^$ cellphones" for the exact same thing.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by RFDOG on September 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why should Amateurs be exempt? Mobil radio operation IS a distraction to the task of driving. If hands free devices are required for mobile telephone users, then we should be required to have them also.
"Last but not least, get involved with your local governmental entities, and work towards exempting amateur radio from the avalanche of anti-telemetric ordinances. This is best done as a united front, so get your local clubs and Section Managers involved too."
|
|   |
|
Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4RAB on September 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Without a doubt, this is an issue well worth a great deal of thought, and many here have good ideas.
I have to agree with those who say that a two way radio conversation is not the same as a full duplex conversation such as that on a cellphone. While I have a cellphone, I avoid its use whatsoever when driving, but I don't shy away from using my mobile FM rig while on the road, provided that the traffic conditions are right, that is, the traffic is light.
I think hams could derive some good ideas from looking at the two way radio operations of NASCAR drivers. For one thing, you will NEVER see a NASCAR driver holding a hand microphone! His mike is in his helmet, and they are either using VOX or (more likely) a foot switch to push to talk. It goes without saying that racing is an environment with zero tolerance for distracted driving, but these guys never less are able to keep conversations going on with their pit crews while moving at nearly 200 MPH around a small track. I realize that these drivers are professionals and that they don't tend to engage in the type of chit-chat that mobile hams do, but I do think that ham use of a non-hand held mike and a foot switch would be a vast improvement.
Also agree with those who cite equipment “featuritus.” The average FM rig has so many features on the hand mike that there is no possibility that they could be used safely while driving. The driver needs only to see basic stuff like frequency (memory channel number) and volume. With the mike on a visor clip or headset and the PTT switch at your left foot, the driver would have no excuse to take his eyes off the road or his hands off the wheel just to talk.
The operative ideas here are both hands on the wheel and the driving is THE priority. I have no illusion that any of these ideas will eliminate distracted driving on the part of ham operators, but it would no doubt make it easier for the operator to concentrate on driving.
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on September 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The biggest difference I notice between using a cell phone and ham radio is HOW we use it. Watch people using a cell phone. They place the tiny things in the palms of their hands and cup their ears. They block out noise and other things they normally would hear and react to. They also in some cases obstruct their vision to the side where they hold the phone. Two strikes against them by blocking the noise and then their vision. The two things that would immediately get their attention if they were not holding a cell phone to their ear. When they finally DO hear or see the thing that they need to react to, the reaction time needed for it has been cut too short to react safely.
Normally hams do not have that limitation since we have a radio that is away from us and the handheld mike doesn't block our vision nor hearing. I think that difference alone makes the margin of safety wider than people wish to recognize and hams as such are far safer when driving using ham radio.
But knowing there may be a problem alerts us to it and we can heighten our senses to be more sure of what we do as we drive.
Frank
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by K4JF on September 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"With the mike on a visor clip or headset and the PTT switch at your left foot, the driver would have no excuse to take his eyes off the road or his hands off the wheel just to talk."
VOX would be better. The left foot is for the clutch. ("Real cars have 3 pedals.")
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why should Amateurs be exempt? Mobil radio operation IS a distraction to the task of driving.
-------------------
Well I suppose the same thing could be said about smoking while driving...
Listening to your car radio while driving..
Operating your turn signals while driving...
Driving while driving...
They should outlaw every driver distraction equally across the board...
(That is what you are saying isn't it?)
|
|   |
|
RE: Mobile Radio Distraction
|
|
|
by WA0WHT on September 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It appears to me that starting July 2008 California hams may need to wear headsets when they operate as mobiles. Governor S. signed a bill into law (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1601-1650/sb_1613_bill_20060908_enrolled.html) that will prohibit hand-held "wireless telephones". There are specific exemptions for certain two-way radios, but not amateur radio specifically. This applies to "wireless telephones", but it's not clear how the courts will define that term. At least one ham in New York City has already run into a similar judicial buzz saw (http://www.eham.net/articles/12676).
I haven't seen much comment from hams. What do you California mobilers think about it?
Tom
WA0WHT
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
USA 5 MHz Emcomm, Not Ragchew DX Contests
Warnings from Icom
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
|
|