Call Search
     

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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say  (Read 18997 times)
AI8P
Member

Posts: 118




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2012, 09:27:42 AM »

So, that is a "No".
Logged
N2RRA
Member

Posts: 645


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2012, 09:56:03 AM »

He's probably thinking...."I'm crazy for talking to a wall" as I am guilty of the same.

No more talking to walls!
 Wink
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 250




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2012, 02:28:34 PM »

Smiley Maybe there should be a test for this.  Driving while talking on the radio/cell phone/operating MP3 player/dealing with kids in the back/etc.

I'd expect that there would be a spectrum of ability.  Younger folks who grew up with cell phones and multitasking probably do it better than OFs.

Also depends on where you drive.  I drive long, barren stretches of straight road to and from work.  Other people deal with traffic, traffic lights, pedestrians, etc.  Sometimes there's weather to deal with.

Anyway, there doesn't need to be a law.  People just need to be honest arbiters of their own capabilities, be responsible, and think safety first.  Isn't that simple?  Seems to work for the thousands and thousands of Americans who legally carry concealed weapons. 

There are times when I am perfectly comfortable operating a mobile rig and times when I wouldn't be.
Logged
KT0DD
Member

Posts: 277




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2012, 03:05:54 PM »

AI8P is what we call a TROLL on this site. He instigates controversy in this topic to fufill some perverted narcissistic need of his. He always has to be right. He may suffer from dementia and his mind may wander to longing for "the good old days" when he was captain of his high school or college debate team. Winning an argument is what he strives for, as that gives him an adrenalin rush he is unable to achieve by healthier means.

As for myself, I'm qrt communicating with TROLLS.  Even if some kind of law is passed, I will exercise civil disobediance, and continue operating whether or not I am driving.

73 to the sane ones in this thread.  

 Todd - KT0DD
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 03:11:37 PM by KT0DD » Logged
N2RRA
Member

Posts: 645


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2012, 05:47:57 PM »

You guys all said it very well for me. As if you guys knew what I was thinking.

73 fella's!
Logged
AI8P
Member

Posts: 118




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: February 29, 2012, 09:56:13 AM »

KT0DD, I'll take you at your word - I guess you will not be acknowledging this.

As far as my motives, it is always dangerous to speculate on the motives of others.

Maybe I'm just trying to keep you all safe on the highways.

And as far as "testing", read the studies.   Lots of testing has been done.  Distracted driving is not a myth, it is a scientifically establish phenomenon. 

I always chuckle when the "spectrum of ability" comes up.

Translated this means - the speaker is vastly superior in this respect, and only the dummies are subject to distracted driving.

BTW, 2 more votes for the "No".

AI8P
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 250




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: February 29, 2012, 10:38:15 AM »


I always chuckle when the "spectrum of ability" comes up.

Translated this means - the speaker is vastly superior in this respect, and only the dummies are subject to distracted driving.


Maybe so!  There are differences among people and their capabilities.  Do you deny that?
Logged
AI8P
Member

Posts: 118




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: March 01, 2012, 09:39:24 AM »

What I deny is that I (or you) live in Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average".

It's called illusory superiority.

Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 250




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2012, 10:08:32 AM »

What I deny is that I (or you) live in Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average".

It's called illusory superiority.



I have few illusions regarding my superiority. Smiley

It may be the case that the self-selected few who get a ham radio license and install a rig in their car _are_ actually above average when it comes to care and attention.  Don't know if any studies have been done.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone who bothers to license themselves might be a little more "serious" than a 16 year old with an iPhone looking at Facebook.  Insurance rates vary based on age, experience, even profession.  Their business is to know and understand the risks and numbers.  Never been asked if I was a ham by an insurance company.

Anyway, more laws that hamstring me based on what the lowest common denominator may do -- that's a slippery slope that I want to avoid.  And that seems to be the underlying premise where we disagree.  I prefer to err on the side of more personal freedom, within reason, despite marginal reductions in safety.

How about we cut to the chase and outlaw driving when distracted?  No driving after a break-up, hard day at work, exciting ball game on the radio, headache, etc.  
Logged
AI8P
Member

Posts: 118




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: March 02, 2012, 09:36:33 AM »

So your theory is that people that pass a test that many 8-year olds have passed are somehow shielded from the cognitive impairment of distracted driving?

Does it protect you against cancer as well?
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6034




Ignore
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2012, 04:33:11 AM »

Can you explain to me, in scientific terms, the difference in cognitive distraction between talking on a CB and talking on a cell phone?   Is it the mic cable?

No, its the fact that with a telephone, the voice is right at your ear, and the conversation is duplex.  Not so with any kind of two way radio--even if you're using an earphone.
Logged
AI8P
Member

Posts: 118




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2012, 02:57:32 PM »

OK, I'm confused.

So the cell phone right at your ear is worse why?   Is it that the "evil" sound waves lose their potency when they travel some distance through the air?   Not a very compelling argument.

Duplex vs simplex - a complete red herring.   The studies show clearly that even listening to a recording with the knowledge that you will be asked about it later causes cognitive distraction.   You surely cannot be seriously arguing that needing to press a button to reply is somehow LESS distracting. 

Logged
W2RI
Member

Posts: 54




Ignore
« Reply #72 on: March 05, 2012, 09:31:21 AM »

OK, I'm confused.

So the cell phone right at your ear is worse why?

Perhaps you wouldn't be confused if you actually read the previous messages in this thread.

As to why a cellphone at your ear is worse, the answer seems pretty obvious to me. Imagine you have headphones on and are scanning the bands. You stop when you hear a call or QSO in poor conditions, and so you must concentrate on what you hear in order to discern it. When concentrating in this fashion your attention to other inputs is diminished. When you are not concentrating on what you hear then you are more aware of other inputs and your surroundings.

It shouldn't require the skills of a detective to observe that when someone is talking on a phone they are usually concentrating on the voice at their ear, to the almost total exclusion of other stimuli. That is typically not the case when they are in a regular conversation. General QSOs in good conditions is very similar to talking on a radio when the radio is connected to a speaker. Is this so difficult for you to understand?



 
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 250




Ignore
« Reply #73 on: March 05, 2012, 12:00:45 PM »

So your theory is that people that pass a test that many 8-year olds have passed are somehow shielded from the cognitive impairment of distracted driving?

I meant what I said -- that a self-selected person who takes and passes a ham radio test is likely more careful and attentive than average.  Although your apparent lack of comprehension is undermining my point.  I'll just assume it's intentional.  Wink

Anyway, care and attentiveness are positively correlated with making wise decisions -- whether to engage in/continue a QSO, etc. when considering driving conditions.  Whether an 8 year old can pass the test isn't the crucial matter -- it's that someone, of their own volition, makes the effort to get licensed.  That, I contend, correlates positively with carefulness, seriousness, attentiveness, etc.  Especially when compared to the average teen with a cell phone.  I'm connecting the dots here for you -- you know this.

Quote
Does it protect you against cancer as well?

Maybe, but I doubt it, based on some of the physical specimens I've seen at hamfests.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 12:40:36 PM by AK7V » Logged
AI8P
Member

Posts: 118




Ignore
« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2012, 09:24:35 AM »

Sorry, but I don't see much difference between talking on a phone (perhaps even a hands free cell phone setup) and talking on a CB.   Either one is a distraction - you are listening to the other person talking and formulating a response.   This is exactly the sort of multi-tasking that leads to tunnel vision.

I have seen no studies correlating "care and attentiveness" and a resistance to cognitive distraction. 

As far as concentrating on a QSO in bad conditions - my cell phone transmissions are much clearer than SSB, so I guess I don't understand the example.



Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!