eHam

eHam Forums => Mobile Ham => Topic started by: WA4D on January 20, 2012, 10:01:12 AM



Title: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: WA4D on January 20, 2012, 10:01:12 AM
The  NTSB 's December recommendation to ban all driver "nonemergency use of portable electronic devices"  rattled Newington.  [As well it should]

ARRL CEO Dave Sumner (K1ZZ) writes in the current issue of QST, an editorial on "Distracted Driving". Sumner, predictably begins with a Distracted driving  incident where kids were involved and goes on to point out that existing laws in the state were in place prior to the incident  and one of the "guilty" drivers was violating the law.

Sumner observes that there is little debate over "texting" as a "bad idea" and "serious safety risk" yet hands free cell phone use is more questionable as a risky distraction.

What Sumner did not say is WHY  Ham Radio's should be  operated by the driver of a motor vehicle. Just what communication by hams is necessary while a vehicle is in motion?There is no "vital" need to operate a ham radio while driving. Pull over if one must for the extremely rare emergency traffic.

There is indisputable evidence that interaction with electronic devices takes the driver's attention off his most important task. That of driving the vehicle safely.  Sumner repeatedly makes reference to "Safety" in his piece. Yet, this safety concern is hollow, while still supporting the non-essential (and some would say frivolous} use of Ham Radios while operating a vehicle  in motion.

The  NTSB 's December recommendation to ban all driver "nonemergency use of portable electronic devices"  should extend to Ham radio, GPS units, iPods, ebooks, and any other }portable{ device not associated with vehicle operation. Ham Radios operators should not be exempt from such prohibitions. [ If legislators are given the opportunity to hear the level of discourse on a 2 meter repeater, there is little doubt Hams will be hoisted by their own petard.]

Sumner should take a stand for safety first and advocate  the termination of Ham mobile operations. Instead he seeks refuge in the nauseating reassurance of the 2009 comments by the NSC President.  "Until such time as compelling, peer-reviewed research denotes significant risks" in the use of Ham  Radio, they will oppose legislative restrictions. How ridiculous!  It' not the radio, or the phone, it's the cognitive overload that is the issue.

The good news is, Ham Radio mobile enthusiasts are now on the defensive. Newington will lobby against ham radio mobile prohibitions. Yet the odds are that in some states a total ban will be successfully enacted.  As it should be.

mike/ wa4d.net






Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KB9TMP on January 20, 2012, 10:37:36 AM
QUOTE:
"The  NTSB 's December recommendation to ban all driver "nonemergency use of portable electronic devices"  should extend to Ham radio, GPS units, iPods, ebooks, and any other device not associated with vehicle operation. Ham Radios operators should not be exempt from such prohibitions."

That would also mean that you CAN NOT play your car radio/tape player/CD, use your heater/AC unit or any other electronic device since it would not be associated with "vehicle operation"

I don't need the feds to protect me from myself! Nor do I want to live in a "Nanny State" either!
73 KB9TMP


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W2RI on January 20, 2012, 11:44:43 AM
I don't know why (a) your previous thread on this topic seems to have disappeared and (b) why, after the response to that thread from readers, you felt the need to rehash the same topic. Are you just trolling, or do you really believe what you've posted?


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: WA4D on January 20, 2012, 12:16:26 PM
KB9TMP.....good point. And a minor correction. The NTSB 's recommendation was for PED's (there's already an acronym!)  Portable Electronic Devices.

Cheers from LA...... where there are Dozens and Dozens of VHF/UHF Repeaters that are silent except for ID's day after day after day and little would be lost were Mobile operation banned.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K0BG on January 20, 2012, 04:00:24 PM
Oh! Geez, here we go again. Mike doesn't believe anyone should operate from their mobile, as any frequent visitor to eham would know.

What David said is fairly close to reality, but if you really want to know the real story, all you have to do is scan around the NHTSA's site. All of the data you can absorb is there, and on the NSTB's site.

Distraction kills! No one denies that. What isn't defined here is, the level of distraction. The old adage is true—some people cannot chew gum, and walk at the same time. That in no way indicates that some of us might be able to. Even with that thought in mind, if amateur radio communications were as destructive as Mike would have us believe, then police, ambulance, and firemen would account for 90% of the accidents. They don't even come close to 1%!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: NO2A on January 20, 2012, 05:04:39 PM
Mike,if you want to remove your car stereo,heater,a/c,and anything else that`s a "distraction" go ahead. Please stop blaming hams and comparing them to cell phone users. I have yet to see a ham operator cause an accident.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KB1TXK on January 20, 2012, 06:53:00 PM
Maybe his last thread disappeared because someone reported it, like whats happening now.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KI4SDY on January 20, 2012, 11:16:04 PM
If he doesn't want to talk on the radio, why is his name Mike ? ;)


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W7AIT on January 21, 2012, 12:49:24 PM
In my opinion **all** mobile ham radio while driving is distracted driving.  Period!

I especially get upset with CW mobile ops I work barreling down the road at 80 mph (bragging about it too) just sending away, talking to me.  Dangerous, stupid!  I “call them” on it, telling them to pull over and stop if they want to qso (they don’t).  I surely wouldn’t want my kids, wife or any family killed by an accident caused by such a stupid ham who has such blatant disregard for not paying attention to his driving and placing  sending CW with a key at 80 mph in his car, above the law, safety and common sense.  Any of his actions leading to fatality of anyone must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!

And the “emergency preparedness” reasons for operating CW mobile (or any voice mobile) at 80 mph just doesn’t wash, makes no sense, and is a load of horse dung; how stupid- give me a break, I have more intelligence than that.  There is absolutely no reason **ever** for a ham to operate CW or SSB or FM barreling down the road at 80 MPH, emergency or not.  Its plain DANGEROUS!  There are people who’s profession it is to take care of such emergencies, they are trained for it, have the help, so it can be done safely as professional first responders.  Leave it to the pro’s!

Time for hams to “get real” and get off their stupid high horse, holier than thou, stinking attitude.
 
If said mobile CW or SSB or FM ham causes a wreck and kills my family due to distracted driving, I surely will be civilly and criminally suing him for blatant negligence.

No I don’t operate radios mobile.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AA4PB on January 21, 2012, 02:03:15 PM
How about the driver who is talking to a passenger, or dealing with kids in the back seat, or changing stations on the broadcast radio? That fact is that it's all distracting to some extent - its a matter of degree. Listening and occasionally talking on a 2M mobile is less distracting than using a handheld cell or texting. Operating an HF, trying to tune in a station, adjust filters, etc is more distracting "ham operation" than monitoring 2M FM.

The problem with more government rules is that there are usually unintended consequences that the lawmakers never thought of. They'll outlaw radio use without realizing that means a police officer in hot pursuit has to pull off the road and stop in order to call for assistance or a license plate check. Mean while the bad guy is long gone.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on January 22, 2012, 05:30:26 AM
Mike,

I agree with you,  it is the cognitive overload that is the problem.  I have reviewed a lot of the research and it is very clear that operating mobile radio is a danger both to the hams doing so and to the others who share the highway with them.

It is now the official policy of Summit County ARES that no hams are to communicate on the radio while driving.   If communications is absolutely required, then pull off to the side of the road and communicate.

And what passes for arguments against this on here is pathetic:

<<"How about the driver who is talking to a passenger, or dealing with kids in the back seat, or changing stations on the broadcast radio?">>

The fact that we cannot eliminate ALL distractions has nothing to do with the fact that we CAN eliminate a distraction that is not necessary. 

<<"Listening and occasionally talking on a 2M mobile is less distracting than using a handheld cell or texting">>

Clearly, this person has not read the extensive scientific research which disputes this claim.

<<"Please stop blaming hams and comparing them to cell phone users. I have yet to see a ham operator cause an accident.">>

Have you actually personally seen a cell phone user cause an accident?   I haven't.  I don't need personal confirmation to believe that things exist.  I've never been to New Mexico, but I believe it exists.   The scientific evidence is quite convincing.  There is no difference between ham radio operators and cell phone users in terms of cognitive overload.   Please read the available research.

<<"The old adage is true—some people cannot chew gum, and walk at the same time. That in no way indicates that some of us might be able to. ">>

This is the classic "Lake Wobegon, where all the kids are above average".   Everyone thinks that they are especially talented and aware and everyone else is stupid and unaware.   It just isn't true.  No one has  a "super brain" that is immune to cognitive overload.   I don't and you don't.  The sooner we realize this and face up to it, the better and safer we will be and those who share the highways with us will be.

<<"I don't need the feds to protect me from myself! Nor do I want to live in a "Nanny State" either!">>

This is called a Red Herring - it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.  It doesn't dispute that cognitive overload is a problem,  it doesn't talk about the mythical difference between ham radio and other distractions, it just tries to sidetrack the discussion into an ever-popular "Government is evil" track.

I wonder if this author feels he doesn't need the feds to protect him from others on the road?  Is it a "Nanny State" to require drivers to pass a test to drive, to have insurance, to have working brakes on their vehicles?   

Let's have less inflammatory comments intended to "win an Eham argument at any cost" and let's have more rational discussion of the actual issue including the actual research.  There is plenty of data available, and it is quite compelling.

My only concern is increasing the safety of all hams everywhere, and of all people who share the road with them.   We cannot achieve "Perfection" in the sense of eliminating all possible distractions for drivers.   However, that is no reason not to eliminate a real distraction that is unique to Ham radio.

Dennis, AI8P


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: G7DIE on January 22, 2012, 07:29:06 AM
Quote
Clearly, this person has not read the extensive scientific research which disputes this claim.

I'd venture it's clear most haven't, in order to enable us to benefit from the research, can you at least point to it, share a link, copy and paste, or whatever.
In the UK special legislation was drawn up to ban the use of mobile devices whilst driving, however press to talk devices were specifically exempted from this legislation, why? because there wasn't the evidence to suggest that using a PTT device was a contributing factor in road accidents.

I use HF mobile a lot so I'd like to see the evidence.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on January 22, 2012, 11:43:09 AM
Stephen,

It's not hard to find but I'd be happy to give a link.

Here is an excellent paper which also contains good explanations and also references to a large number of studies.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC%20White%20Paper%20-%20Distracted%20Driving%203-10.pdf

Various studies have found that even listening to audio with the knowledge that you will be quizzed about the content later results in tunnel vision.   So no talking, no manipulating buttons, no PTT and still significant cognitive distraction.

I find the studies where they actually instrument people and record where they look to be particularly persuasive.   The more people have input overload, the smaller the area that they actually look at.   Sometimes people are looking straight out their windshield, but they are scanning such a small area that they never look at the (red) traffic light.  It isn't just the time that they are looking away that is the problem.  The quality of mental processing of the information that they actually see is also clearly affected when they are trying to do more than 1 thing at a time.  That is why the hands-free solutions are not really solutions at all.

Here is another site with a lot of info

http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/research.html

It's nice to have a rational discussion about this.

Dennis


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AA4PB on January 22, 2012, 12:48:29 PM
Well, the I guess the government should outlaw all of the following in order to protect us from outselves:

1) AM/FM radios in vehicles
2) Talking to passengers
3) Navigation devices
4) Two-way radios in police cars and emergency vehicles. They could be automatically disabled any time the vehicle is moving just to make sure the cops follow the rules  ;D
5) Cell phones
6) CD players
7) Ipods
8 Paper maps
9) Food or drink of any type. Auto mfgs must remove drink holders.
10) Make up, hair brushes, etc. kept within reach of the driver.
11) Require Breathalyzer installed on all vehicles to prevent starting the vehicle if you are drunk or have bad breath  :o

I believe the report was in error about one thing: The Gov't didn't outlaw texting while driving for federal employees. I believe it outlawed texting while driving a "government vehicle" for federal employees. Military bases also outlaw hand held cell phone use or texting for anyone while driving on the base.



Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: G7DIE on January 22, 2012, 01:07:16 PM
A good video about inattention blindness here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo)

If you've seen it before, or figured it out, please leave others to discover the point.

Can I honestly say that my driving has never been impaired by using my radio whilst mobile? No, however knowing this I do takes steps to minimise my exposure to such impairments, that said it's less impairment than driving tired, something I often did when I used to work permanent nights, a 60 mile drive following a hard nighshift really can impair one's cognitive abilties, but then falling asleep always has :-[



Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AA4PB on January 22, 2012, 02:41:56 PM
It seems like some over here want our government to step in and take their mobile ham radio privledges away from them.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on January 22, 2012, 04:39:38 PM
Robert,

How many times are you going to post on the same topic without adding anything to the discussion.

Let me address your earlier list:

Well, the I guess the government should outlaw all of the following in order to protect us from outselves:

1) AM/FM radios in vehicles  - music at reasonable volume is no problem - only very loud volumes
2) Talking to passengers - data shows adult passenger REDUCES your chance of accident
3) Navigation devices - you should set your destination while the vehicle is not moving
4) Two-way radios in police cars and emergency vehicles. They could be automatically disabled any time the vehicle is moving just to make sure the cops follow the rules  ;D  which part of "non-emergency use" is beyond your comprehension?
5) Cell phones - I agree you shouldn't use cell phones in moving cars
6) CD players - see #1, no problem
7) Ipods - see #1 - no problem
8 Paper maps - the driver should not be using a paper map in a moving vehicle
9) Food or drink of any type. Auto mfgs must remove drink holders. - you should not eat or drink while driving - leave the cup holders - they're convenient when I'm parked
10) Make up, hair brushes, etc. kept within reach of the driver. - you should not apply makeup or shave or do your hair while driving
11) Require Breathalyzer installed on all vehicles to prevent starting the vehicle if you are drunk or have bad breath  :o - I'm in favor of keeping drunks from driving

I believe the report was in error about one thing: The Gov't didn't outlaw texting while driving for federal employees. I believe it outlawed texting while driving a "government vehicle" for federal employees. Military bases also outlaw hand held cell phone use or texting for anyone while driving on the base.


[/quote

See my responses above - if you think these are unreasonable restrictions on drivers, well, I'm glad you are not in Ohio sharing the road with me.

Dennis


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AA4PB on January 22, 2012, 05:03:56 PM
"11) Require Breathalyzer installed on all vehicles to prevent starting the vehicle if you are drunk or have bad breath  - I'm in favor of keeping drunks from driving"

Me too, but I'm not in favor of the government requiring a breathalyzer on every vehicle. Are you? You make it sound like you are willing to give up all of your rights in order to prevent a few from doing things they shouldn't be doing. Sorry, but I'm going to keep the mobile installed in my vehicle - even when driving through Ohio. Guess you'd better stay clear of Dayton if you don't want to be on the road with mobile operators  ;D



Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on January 22, 2012, 06:11:48 PM
Ok, we're both against drunk drivers.

That has nothing to do with this topic.

I'm in favor of puppies.   That's not related either.

Dennis


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K7RBW on January 23, 2012, 07:00:54 AM
The study on this that I read that makes the most sense is that it's not the device (cell phone, ham radio, Stereo, whatever), but the amount of attention it needs. In this study, they found that it was the conversation more than the phone call that was the distraction. The phone just facilitates the distracting conversation.

Applying this to other devices you might find in a car:

A car radio with push-button tuning (sometimes with those buttons on the steering wheel) isn't much of a distraction.

Operating CW for an experienced operator can also be very little distraction. It would be disaster for me (not being an experienced CW operator), but I knew some ops that could copy 25+ WPM (on a keyboard) while carrying  on a completely separate conversation.

Having a rag-chew on a mobile radio with a good speaker and a hand mike isn't much of a distraction, most of the time, but trying to copy traffic or tune in a faint DX station while mobile would be a problem.

So, pretty much anything in the car can be a distraction (e.g. having a dog on your lap, the kid's soccer team in the back, etc.). It's up to the driver to manage that and keep their priorities straight. When the activities in the car take priority over driving is when there's trouble.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 23, 2012, 09:30:46 AM
Mike (WA4D),

Your an idiot! I'll go against you and prove without a doubt ham radio equipment can be operated without hazard any day of the year. You can not compare operating a radio via microphone compared to texting on a cell phone which has countless times been mentioned on News stations or debates since accidents were at a all time high. I've never heard of a case ever an "accident kills occupants because operating a ham radio".

Your thread before this was ridiculous and still is ridiculous. Your an insult, and a threat to the community and you should be distinguished. Better yet you should be exiled!!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on January 23, 2012, 09:38:48 AM
Eric,

You seem to have a little bit of an anger issue there, my friend.  Even though your reply is of a nature to not be taken seriously, I'll indulge you.

I would like you to "prove without a doubt ham radio equipment can be operated without hazard any day of the year."

I await your scientifically based, peer-reviewed evidence. 

Dennis


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 23, 2012, 05:15:10 PM
LOL!

Just saying what others would like to say and how I see it. Straight shooter!

I'll work on that being you indulged me Dennis I'll return the favor, but research takes time and time is what I'll have to prove Mike wrong. We all on this thread and the thread Mike wrote before this one are waiting for him to prove to us ham radio use was documented too being the cause of a mobile accident with injury or fatality.

Can you imagine ham radio without mobile capability? Not only from a Emmcomm prospective but all around general use. I run mobile all the time and for twenty years never getting into an accident. To have this one pro government supporter ruin my fun and for the rest of us would be wrong. In fact I have gotten into an accident for falling asleep on the wheel after putting in 12 hour shifts at work. Can't tell you how many countless days and years my transceiver in the mobile has kept me from sleeping at the wheel. Even on long distant rides across the country.

Just cause hes not capable and feels this way which is the reason for his theory doesn't mean he's gotta impose a ban of mobile operation for the rest of us.

My anger...well that's another story! Just fed up with his post. I was cool with his last thread and now he's persistent on gaining support for his agenda and it's not gonna happen.

73 Dennis!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on January 24, 2012, 03:48:34 AM
So we now base things on anecdotal evidence?

My Dad smoked for 70 years and never got lung cancer - damn docs are obviously lying to us!

Keith Richards has been using heroin since I was a baby and he's still ticking (although opinions vary as to whether a zombie can be poisoned!) - damn government is lying to us!

I was exposed to a ton of asbestos in the Navy and never got any lung diseases - those asbestos lawsuits are obviously a scam!

I talked on my cell phone and on my ham mobile for years while driving and never had an accident - obviously distracted driving is a myth.

I'm an engineer.   The world works this way for me:   my opinion vs your opinion is a draw,  my opinion vs your facts means you win.

If you take a look at the abundance of available studies, I believe the inevitable conclusion is that a number of activities that are adequate proxies for ham mobile operation have been shown to impair driving.   That's good enough for me.   

Some people will go to any irrational extreme to justify their belief:

"Well, they didn't actually study ham mobile operations"

"Well, they only studied 2M ham mobile operations, so 70cm is still ok"

"Well, they never studied 70cm mobile operation using a Kenwood radio"

Well, I have a custom mic, and they never tested 2M operation with my radio and this custom mic, so obviously what I do is ok"

Don't be that irrational guy!   I think the evidence is in.  Hams have a long history of being technical people who are willing to accept the facts.   Let's not change that now.

It's time to stop operating while driving.

Dennis


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS on January 24, 2012, 06:07:09 AM
Dennis, I was laughing--hard--after reading your post.  Nice shot--and right at the bullseye too!  73!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 24, 2012, 06:17:32 AM
So we now base things on anecdotal evidence?

My Dad smoked for 70 years and never got lung cancer - damn docs are obviously lying to us!

Keith Richards has been using heroin since I was a baby and he's still ticking (although opinions vary as to whether a zombie can be poisoned!) - damn government is lying to us!

I was exposed to a ton of asbestos in the Navy and never got any lung diseases - those asbestos lawsuits are obviously a scam!

I talked on my cell phone and on my ham mobile for years while driving and never had an accident - obviously distracted driving is a myth.

I'm an engineer.   The world works this way for me:   my opinion vs your opinion is a draw,  my opinion vs your facts means you win.

If you take a look at the abundance of available studies, I believe the inevitable conclusion is that a number of activities that are adequate proxies for ham mobile operation have been shown to impair driving.   That's good enough for me.  

Some people will go to any irrational extreme to justify their belief:

"Well, they didn't actually study ham mobile operations"

"Well, they only studied 2M ham mobile operations, so 70cm is still ok"

"Well, they never studied 70cm mobile operation using a Kenwood radio"

Well, I have a custom mic, and they never tested 2M operation with my radio and this custom mic, so obviously what I do is ok"

Don't be that irrational guy!   I think the evidence is in.  Hams have a long history of being technical people who are willing to accept the facts.   Let's not change that now.

It's time to stop operating while driving.

Dennis

Irrational? Me?

I'm not the one that can't think rationally. Seems like you two characters can't seem to grasp the concept that the cause of accidents are due to human era like everything else. Here's a couple!

Guns don't kill! People kill people!

If you leave the gun alone it won't kill. As soon as theres human intervention that changes things. Should you condemn everyone from owning a gun cause some idiot doesn't know how to handle one or miss use's it? Absolutely not!!

Just because I feel like many others that have experienced an elderly driver that can barely see and moving at 30 miles an hour on a freeway swerving should have a suspended license along with every elderly person his/her age above 70. Absolute not!!

Electronics don't kill people! Idiots that can't operate them while driving do.

I've never in my life come across any accident that involved an amateur radio operator. We can  spot one on the road just like you can spot your own vehicle equipped with the same gear. I know if I had seen a mobile ham in distress I would most certainly see if they were all right. In the countless accidents due to his/her operating as per your claim I would certainly remember and I have never witnessed an accident in such a circumstance.

You suggestion I'm irrational becomes contradictory when you use sarcasm as irrefutable evidence the majority is wrong.  Your tactic clearly shows your irrational act based on minimal evidence on too broad of a subject and illogical to the topic. What do any of those quotes and who your quoting proves nothing on what you claim.

Logic and rationality would agree a human being is responsible for their actions and thats why we have insurance and the law structure now in place to prove one guilty. There's is nothing in the books to prove your claims that ham radio specifically is the cause of this accident epidemic.

 When they inacted on cell phone use was because it was the major player that condemned most portable electronics. Before cell phone use there was ham radio and C.B. radio and never had they either been mentioned as a main cause of automobile accidents in the category of DUI, DWI and cell phone use along with texting. Never!

You two guys are just the type of guys that always have to be Mr. Right and are condeming all of us due to your lack of capability driving while operating. Therefore assuming "irrationally" we have a the same problem. Not!!!

Good luck with your agenda!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on January 24, 2012, 09:53:31 AM
There is a reason why we have such good statistics as to how much cell phone usage contributes to traffic accidents and we don't see such statistics for Ham radio and CB.

I don't know if you are aware that it is routine now for law enforcement to examine the cell phone records of people who are in accidents.    You will often see "He was using his cell phone just before the accident" or "he was texting just prior to the incident".  That's not because he volunteered that information, it's because they checked the cell phone records.

(Thankfully) Ham radio does not leave a legal record of when it is being used.   That is the reason that we don't see statistics for Ham Radio and traffic accidents.

However,  if you look at the research you will see many good analogues for Ham radio amongst the activities that have been shown to promote tunnel vision and to slow reactions. 

It is irrational to say "Just because things that are comparable to my activity have been shown to be a problem doesn't count, because the EXACT thing that I do has not been studied."

Look, I'm not trying to take away anyone's rights - I'm trying to keep people safe, including Hams and the people who share the highways with them.

Eric,  I'm overjoyed that you have never had an accident while operating mobile.  However, that is no evidence that it isn't a distraction.   I know a lot of fat Hams who don't exercise.   None of the ones I know has had a heart attack.   However, I still believe that statistically, maintaining our weight and getting exercise is good for us and will maximize both our quantity and quality of life.   Your argument is similar to one of them claiming that obesity and lack of exercise are not a factor because they haven't experienced any personal consequences.   No one is saying that everyone operating while mobile is going to die.   We are saying that the scientific research indicates that driving ability is impaired.  You don't need your A game every moment that you are driving, but you don't know when not having it will become a factor.

And spare me the thinly veiled "Eric is a superhuman who is not subject to these distractions like these other dweebs".

Dennis


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 24, 2012, 12:45:41 PM
"And spare me the thinly veiled "Eric is a superhuman who is not subject to these distractions like these other dweebs"."

Holy crap! You got something right and really hit the bullseye. LOL!

Go ahead and ban ham radios from cars. Good Luck!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS on January 25, 2012, 05:28:57 AM
Irrational? Me?

I'm not the one that can't think rationally. Seems like you two characters can't seem to grasp the concept that the cause of accidents are due to human era like everything else. Here's a couple!....

Hey pal, I'm not implying anything about you--I was just commenting on the sarcasm that Dennis posted.  AAMOF, I agree that the cause of most accidents IS human ERROR.  See that?  Speaking of 'accidental' errors--you just made one!    ::)


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 25, 2012, 06:03:06 AM
Irrational? Me?

I'm not the one that can't think rationally. Seems like you two characters can't seem to grasp the concept that the cause of accidents are due to human era like everything else. Here's a couple!....

Hey pal, I'm not implying anything about you--I was just commenting on the sarcasm that Dennis posted.  AAMOF, I agree that the cause of most accidents IS human ERROR.  See that?  Speaking of 'accidental' errors--you just made one!    ::)

Ah! No! You made the error, pal!

I was referring to Dennis's comment. Re-read his post. See!  :P


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AC4RD on January 25, 2012, 09:07:47 AM
the concept that the cause of accidents are due to human era like everything else. Here's a couple!....
that the cause of most accidents IS human ERROR.  See that?  Speaking of 'accidental' errors--you just made one!    ::)
[/quote]

Ah! No! You made the error, pal!
[/quote]

He MEANT that you don't appear to know the difference between "era" and "error."  He was nice enough to ascribe it to accident on your part. 


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 25, 2012, 09:29:14 AM
Now that I've woken up I stand corrected. Was not the fact I didn't know the difference but was a simple ,ERROR.

Thanks!   ::)


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K3WEC on January 25, 2012, 06:40:01 PM
CW while driving?  That, I do believe, is crazy (and weird).  I didn't really believe it until I just looked at a youtube video of a guy in traffic, operating CW, during a snowstorm, and videotaping the QSO.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 26, 2012, 01:27:34 AM
CW while driving?  That, I do believe, is crazy (and weird).  I didn't really believe it until I just looked at a youtube video of a guy in traffic, operating CW, during a snowstorm, and videotaping the QSO.

That's just crazy! What weirdo does that?

Oh that's right. Me!

 :D LOL!

By the way! NO accidents ever either in my vids.  ;)

73!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS on January 26, 2012, 05:09:38 AM
Besides that 'error', I was also referring to what you said--please reread YOUR post where YOU said:

"Seems like you two characters can't seem to grasp the concept..."

That post followed one by Dennis and one by myself.  Now, you were saying....   ::)


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 26, 2012, 05:58:08 AM
Besides that 'error', I was also referring to what you said--please reread YOUR post where YOU said:

"Seems like you two characters can't seem to grasp the concept..."

That post followed one by Dennis and one by myself.  Now, you were saying....   ::)

I did mean you two characters!

You regardless because you haven't said nothing constructive nor contributed anything worthy for me to respond to. So far what I've read from you is sarcasm antagonizing nonsense like your normally known for. Unless of course it hits you back in the face then you'll either side with the other party and get your kicks on these forum's by doing what you do now.

Instead of being serious and sticking to one side you'll go with what works for your amusement. For that, you don't get the picture here. So have a mature conversation for once instead of instigating and we'll figure out which side your on.

All I needed to read was this guys thread topic and give my opinion. From then on I read what's thrown at me. I don't read other peoples responses for amusement so if you did have anything constructive to say prior K1CJS then I'll re access my opinion.

Good Day!  ;D


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K3WEC on January 26, 2012, 06:33:52 PM
CW while driving?  That, I do believe, is crazy (and weird).  I didn't really believe it until I just looked at a youtube video of a guy in traffic, operating CW, during a snowstorm, and videotaping the QSO.

That's just crazy! What weirdo does that?

Oh that's right. Me!

 :D LOL!

By the way! NO accidents ever either in my vids.  ;)

73!

What self-respecting mobile CW operator would post videos of his accidents?   :D


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS on January 27, 2012, 05:03:46 AM
Well, pardon me for expressing an opinion on one post made in fun.  I didn't respond to you and really had no opinion on your view, I just thought the post made by AI8P concerning the thread hit the nail on the head--which I already said.  BTW, you didn't originate the thread, so why play thread police?  Geez..... 


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 27, 2012, 10:07:25 AM
Well, pardon me for expressing an opinion on one post made in fun.  I didn't respond to you and really had no opinion on your view, I just thought the post made by AI8P concerning the thread hit the nail on the head--which I already said.  BTW, you didn't originate the thread, so why play thread police?  Geez..... 


That's funny! Your call is synonymous with these types of threads as either thread police or instigator number one. Everyone knows the call K1CJS on these forum's. It took me a while before I had to state my opinion and opinions are what these forums are for. So your accusation of me being thread police is a far cry from the truth. 

Hey, I'm only stating the facts and giving my opinion, but opinions are like as______. everyones got one! So I'm not getting on ya but if your gonna instigate, make fun and put your two sense where it doesn't belong in a conversation between two people we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Good Day!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KASSY on January 27, 2012, 03:38:34 PM
He also did not encourage us to drive only white cars, which have been shown by the NTSB as being 80% less likely to be struck by a distracted driver. 

He also did not encourage us to never have a passenger.  Conversations with passengers are also another major distraction.  The NSTB routinely reports on causes of distracted driving.  Loud kids in the back seat.  Windows open, blows papers around, driver reaches to pick them up, whammo. 

Your distractibility rises a lot after one solid hour behind the wheel.  In Europe, cars have dashboard reminders to take a break after an hour for this reason.  In the US, people think nothing of drivnig until they need gas - six to eight hours at a shot.

Is cellphone usage or ham radio usage a distraction?  Perhaps.  But so is having a passenger, so is listening to the AM/FM radio, so is looking at a cute girl/hunky guy on the sidewalk. 

Why single out one specific distraction? Instead, we need to culture people to deal with a life that's full of distractions, while still focusing on what is important.

- k


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 27, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
He also did not encourage us to drive only white cars, which have been shown by the NTSB as being 80% less likely to be struck by a distracted driver.  

He also did not encourage us to never have a passenger.  Conversations with passengers are also another major distraction.  The NSTB routinely reports on causes of distracted driving.  Loud kids in the back seat.  Windows open, blows papers around, driver reaches to pick them up, whammo.  

Your distractibility rises a lot after one solid hour behind the wheel.  In Europe, cars have dashboard reminders to take a break after an hour for this reason.  In the US, people think nothing of drivnig until they need gas - six to eight hours at a shot.

Is cellphone usage or ham radio usage a distraction?  Perhaps.  But so is having a passenger, so is listening to the AM/FM radio, so is looking at a cute girl/hunky guy on the sidewalk.  

Why single out one specific distraction? Instead, we need to culture people to deal with a life that's full of distractions, while still focusing on what is important.

- k

Well said!

That's what we've been trying to convey to WA4D and his constituents in this thread and the one prior but their dead set for some reason on pointing out ham radio use which I think is just redicilous and for such a small community. They just don't get it, but then again that tends to be the American way a lot of times.

What you said is the logical approach but too much of a responsibility and common sense for some to comprehend. If they were too succeed in including ham radio operating via mobile as bad as operating a cell phone including texting they'll find something else to include in the cause of an accident. By that point you might as well not even drive.

The only thing they'll never include is just plain old taking responsibility for their own actions as a human.

Very well said and just plain old common sense and logic.

73!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on January 27, 2012, 07:28:53 PM
CW while driving?  That, I do believe, is crazy (and weird).  I didn't really believe it until I just looked at a youtube video of a guy in traffic, operating CW, during a snowstorm, and videotaping the QSO.

That's just crazy! What weirdo does that?

Oh that's right. Me!

 :D LOL!

By the way! NO accidents ever either in my vids.  ;)

73!

What self-respecting mobile CW operator would post videos of his accidents?   :D


That would be crazy. LOL!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W0DV on February 02, 2012, 04:21:59 PM
Well, the I guess the government should outlaw all of the following in order to protect us from outselves:

1) AM/FM radios in vehicles
2) Talking to passengers
3) Navigation devices
4) Two-way radios in police cars and emergency vehicles. They could be automatically disabled any time the vehicle is moving just to make sure the cops follow the rules  ;D
5) Cell phones
6) CD players
7) Ipods
8 Paper maps
9) Food or drink of any type. Auto mfgs must remove drink holders.
10) Make up, hair brushes, etc. kept within reach of the driver.
11) Require Breathalyzer installed on all vehicles to prevent starting the vehicle if you are drunk or have bad breath  :o

I believe the report was in error about one thing: The Gov't didn't outlaw texting while driving for federal employees. I believe it outlawed texting while driving a "government vehicle" for federal employees. Military bases also outlaw hand held cell phone use or texting for anyone while driving on the base.




Take a good look at this post....predictable, silly response.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W0DV on February 02, 2012, 05:01:09 PM
What many of you fail to grasp (for whatever reason) is that no one is attacking mobile ham radio use. This is about distracted driving. What difference does it make wether it is a cell phone or a microphone? Some have whined that ham radio should be distinguished from cell phone use. That sort of logic is what a teenager would use on his parents, trying to manipulate them to get what he wants.
My wife and I were recently involved in a serious accident that was caused by a distracted driver. I have learned that we are just part of a growing trend of people getting hurt in car accidents because of someone failing to direct his/her attention to the road. Yes, cell phone use is a major cause, and ham radio use is seldom a cause.
Be that as it may, I agree with the recommendation that portable electronic devices should not be used by someone who is operating a motor vehicle. Just banning cell phone use would be a silly, and reckless move, when in today's society there are so many portable electronic devices that are available, and are being used in the auto.
There are some people who just don't like to be told what to do. They don't like to be told to wear a seat belt, they hate a background check when they purchase a gun, they whine about their "rights" whenever there is common sense legislation passed in the interest of public safety. These personalities have a bloated sense of entitlement, and selfishness.
I hope distracted driving laws banning portable electronic devices are passed in every state. I am an active Amateur Radio operator, and this will in no way take any fun from my hobby. I'm not the only one on the road, and I owe all my attention to the road for the sake of the people I share it with.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W2RI on February 02, 2012, 09:06:41 PM
What many of you fail to grasp (for whatever reason) is that no one is attacking mobile ham radio use.
Wrong.
Quote
Some have whined that ham radio should be distinguished from cell phone use. That sort of logic is what a teenager would use on his parents, trying to manipulate them to get what he wants.
You really support your argument when you claim that those that disagree with you are "whining". You have not provided any proof of your assertion that mobile radio use causes distracted driving - at least, any more so than a regular conversation with a passenger does.
Quote
There are some people who just don't like to be told what to do. They don't like to be told to wear a seat belt, they hate a background check when they purchase a gun, they whine about their "rights" whenever there is common sense legislation passed in the interest of public safety. These personalities have a bloated sense of entitlement, and selfishness.
So who made you King? How does wearing a seat belt make one a safer driver? Last time I checked the US was still a free (or relatively free) country. Since when is sticking up for one's rights a subject for ridicule?


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on February 03, 2012, 06:35:30 AM
What many of you fail to grasp (for whatever reason) is that no one is attacking mobile ham radio use.
Wrong.
Quote
Some have whined that ham radio should be distinguished from cell phone use. That sort of logic is what a teenager would use on his parents, trying to manipulate them to get what he wants.
You really support your argument when you claim that those that disagree with you are "whining". You have not provided any proof of your assertion that mobile radio use causes distracted driving - at least, any more so than a regular conversation with a passenger does.
Quote
There are some people who just don't like to be told what to do. They don't like to be told to wear a seat belt, they hate a background check when they purchase a gun, they whine about their "rights" whenever there is common sense legislation passed in the interest of public safety. These personalities have a bloated sense of entitlement, and selfishness.
So who made you King? How does wearing a seat belt make one a safer driver? Last time I checked the US was still a free (or relatively free) country. Since when is sticking up for one's rights a subject for ridicule?

I agree with W2RI on his last statement!

What you don't seem to grasp W0DV is that it's not a matter of not liking being told what to do but paying for imbeciles that know they have trouble doing it and wind up hurting someone. Did you expect everyone else to accept to give up their freedom because some can't use common sense and logic based on their own responsibilty to know better what their capable of doing and not doing?

Not logical and guess you weren't using your common sense!

You questioned and I quote "what difference does it make wether it is a microphone or a cell phone". Talk about a teen age no common sense comment!

There's a big difference. For one, you don't have to look down constantly like you would texting. May I had most of the reason for these laws being past is due to cell phone texting.

Second, As for speaking on a cell phone at times people are hard of hearing because the cell phone speaker output is not very good. Ham radio gear has a much larger amplified speaker so your attention isn't being drawn away and tunnel visioned into space going "hah hah, I can't hear you" for the most part. There maybe some variables involved but still not as many ham rigs in the cars as much as there are cell phones ringing in the ears of some clumsy fools driving.

We can compare over and over again the differences but let's mention the obvious. Many many things can distract one from driving. For many a simple eagle flying over head, a hottie with a boottie, and even another accident but the list can go on and on.

Bottom line it is much less complicated to operate a radio as any car sterio and not have to take total attention away from the road as a cell phone would. That's just the pure simple fact. Yet I'll say it again! There are many things to draw away someones attention from the road so disrupting or infringing on someones else's right is just absurd. 

Sorry to hear about your accident but maybe just maybe you weren't to observant to see it coming. Just maybe it wouldn't have mattered but a lot of people drive around with their head in a cloud tunnel vissioned driving like their the only person on the road. You have to keep your head on a swivel and next time you could take defensive driving tactics to see it coming and avoid.

I've avoided many accidents because I saw them coming or I anticipated their move before that person made it. It's just something that comes with experience and common sense road practice. How many people drive like that? Probably not many but if everyone had a class to teach them because of lack of common sense of their own maybe they'd be less accidents.

Defensive driving courses are what I think people require instead of walking into a DMV and getting a license. Think about it! Is reading a driving practice exam booklet really the way for a person to get a license. I think not!

You get these people from other countries where they lived all their lives driving like they do then come here and think they can get away with the same crap. Go to India and tell me what you think. Then you'll wonder why alot of Indian's from Queens, NY drive the way they do. No respect for others at all.

I think the solution is a defensive driving course explained by a trained driving instructor to point out the obvious while teaching driving ethics and tactics rather than "demanding" me to remove my rig from my vehicle. It keeps up this way "being told what to do" we'll wind up like China or Russia.

I won't let it!

73!






Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W0DV on February 03, 2012, 06:40:54 PM
N2RRA: haha, do you think you are a better driver? Immune from getting in an accident? It's really foolish on your part to think that you cannot be involved in an accident because of the negligence of another. Like you, I have avoided many accidents. I am no different than most, many of us have had close calls. Yes, defensive driving is very important, and everyone should practice it. I was rear-ended while I was at a red light by someone who was doing about 50 mph, not paying attention to the road. I was at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Can you identify the "imbeciles" on the road? That would make driving a lot easier wouldn't it?  It would also make things a lot easier for our state governments.

Since when is an HR more simple to use than a cell phone or car stereo? There are menus, settings, etc. I'm not saying that a ham radio is hard to use, but less complicated than a car stereo? LOL.  That was just a silly statement, pure and simple :)

Who is "demanding" that you remove your rig from your auto? lol. As an example, Illinois isn't. They just don't want you to use it while driving! They also say that you may use your electronic device (cell phone, 2-way, etc) while you are in traffic as long as you are in park, in neutral, during an emergency, or pulled over on the shoulder of the road. If you are using a hands free device, you may use it at any time. Wether you agree with this or not is irrelevant. I think most people will see this as sensible, and I think eventually most states will adopt similar laws.

There are always going to be a few whiners that will have a resistant, defiant attitude. It's not that complicated, it's just a matter of public safety. Distracted driving is becoming a big problem and the state governments are responding.
You and others like you need to understand that current legislation is not in favor of banning a ham radio rig for mobile use, nor is it out to make your life more miserable than it already is. It is looking to protect the general public from harm, and at the same time making an attempt to respect the needs and interests of all who use the road.

Be a man and stop being selfish. You are not the only one on the road. There is no way to tell who is more able to multitask while driving.

I have a rig in my F150, and I enjoy using it. I have no problem pulling over and using my cell, or HR. Too bad laws have to be made to point out the obvious of what they should not be doing in the first place.


W0DV


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on February 04, 2012, 08:42:07 AM
N2RRA: haha, do you think you are a better driver? Immune from getting in an accident? It's really foolish on your part to think that you cannot be involved in an accident because of the negligence of another. Like you, I have avoided many accidents. I am no different than most, many of us have had close calls. Yes, defensive driving is very important, and everyone should practice it. I was rear-ended while I was at a red light by someone who was doing about 50 mph, not paying attention to the road. I was at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Can you identify the "imbeciles" on the road? That would make driving a lot easier wouldn't it?  It would also make things a lot easier for our state governments.

Since when is an HR more simple to use than a cell phone or car stereo? There are menus, settings, etc. I'm not saying that a ham radio is hard to use, but less complicated than a car stereo? LOL.  That was just a silly statement, pure and simple :)

Lastly, who is "demanding" that you remove your rig from your auto? lol. As an example, Illinois isn't. They just don't want you to use it while driving! They also say that you may use your electronic device (cell phone, 2-way, etc) while you are in traffic as long as you are in park, in neutral, during an emergency, or pulled over on the shoulder of the road. Wether you agree with this or nor is irrelevant. I think most people will see this as sensible, and I think eventually most states will adopt similar laws. There are always going to be a few whiners that will have a resistant, defiant attitude. It's not that complicated, it's just a matter of public safety. Distracted driving is becoming a big problem and the state governments are responding.

Be a man and stop being selfish. You are not the only one on the road. There is no way to tell who is more able to multitask while driving. I have a rig in my F150, and I enjoy using it. I have no problem pulling over and using my cell, or HR. Too bad laws have to be made to point out the obvious of what they should not be doing in the first place.

W0DV


 :'(  Cry me a river will ya!!

I am a better driver than you no doubt and there's no reason for me to not feel more confident and positive about that than you.

As for the ease of a HR (ham radio) gear being easier or as easy as a car sterio for me is quite true. Unfortunately you seemed to indicate it is apparently not the same for you which again proves my point of the capable and uncapable operators. Thank you!  ;)

I have a YAESU FT-817ND and an IC-7000 I use while driving. If I can run through the menus, or just utilize the microphone which controls frequency change with ease than no one should have a problem doing the same, right?

"Of course not" your saying. Exactly! Not everyone is capable. That's my point!

I've grown tired of this thread but it has been entertaining to say the least.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W0DV on February 04, 2012, 09:00:54 AM

 :'(  Cry me a river will ya!!

I am a better driver than you no doubt and there's no reason for me to not feel more confident and positive about that than you.

As for the ease of a HR (ham radio) gear being easier or as easy as a car sterio for me is quite true. Unfortunately you seemed to indicate it is apparently not the same for you which again proves my point of the capable and uncapable operators. Thank you!  ;)

I have a YAESU FT-817ND and an IC-7000 I use while driving. If I can run through the menus, or just utilize the microphone which controls frequency change with ease than no one should have a problem doing the same, right?

"Of course not" your saying. Exactly! Not everyone is capable. That's my point!

I've grown tired of this thread but it has been entertaining to say the least.



Your post speaks for itself :)  There is no need for me to comment further.

Goodbye, child :)

W0DV


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on February 04, 2012, 09:21:31 PM

 :'(  Cry me a river will ya!!

I am a better driver than you no doubt and there's no reason for me to not feel more confident and positive about that than you.

As for the ease of a HR (ham radio) gear being easier or as easy as a car sterio for me is quite true. Unfortunately you seemed to indicate it is apparently not the same for you which again proves my point of the capable and uncapable operators. Thank you!  ;)

I have a YAESU FT-817ND and an IC-7000 I use while driving. If I can run through the menus, or just utilize the microphone which controls frequency change with ease than no one should have a problem doing the same, right?

"Of course not" your saying. Exactly! Not everyone is capable. That's my point!

I've grown tired of this thread but it has been entertaining to say the least.



Your post speaks for itself :)  There is no need for me to comment further.

Goodbye, child :)

W0DV

LOL! I am a child in age compared to you but the fact that a child could bring out your immaturity makes me laugh at such a hypocritical statement. I think lowering yourself to name calling speaks for itself.

Enough said!  ;)


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KT0DD on February 12, 2012, 09:59:42 AM
I find the ones who believe ham operation while mobile to be distracting and should be outlawed, to be out of their mind. Besides the socialist, big brother, civil liberty and freedom of choice violations of a ban, there is a point they are missing.

Have any one of them ever heard of road hypnosis and driver fatigue? I personally have found mobile operation a blessing by keeping me awake and more alert on long road trips. Driver fatigue / hypnosis is becoming recognized as about as dangerous as drunk driving, and if a slight distraction can keep someone from falling asleep behind the wheel and killing someone, It's a blessing, not a curse.   Todd - KT0DD 


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS on February 12, 2012, 07:39:40 PM
Have any one of them ever heard of road hypnosis and driver fatigue? I personally have found mobile operation a blessing by keeping me awake and more alert on long road trips. Driver fatigue / hypnosis is becoming recognized as about as dangerous as drunk driving, and if a slight distraction can keep someone from falling asleep behind the wheel and killing someone, It's a blessing, not a curse.

Now that is a good observation.  Long haul truck drivers actually WANTED something in their cab that would serve to distract them and keep them awake.  That is one of the reasons that they were so quick to embrace CB radios when the craze was starting back in the sixties and seventies.  Just the fact that they had someone talking to them helped them keep awake, keep their attention sharp and focussed on their driving.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on February 13, 2012, 10:02:19 AM
Well, I guess you must think that people should be encouraged to talk on their cell phones while they are driving to

"keep awake, keep their attention sharp and focussed on their driving."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Dennis


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on February 13, 2012, 05:50:44 PM
I find the ones who believe ham operation while mobile to be distracting and should be outlawed, to be out of their mind. Besides the socialist, big brother, civil liberty and freedom of choice violations of a ban, there is a point they are missing.

Have any one of them ever heard of road hypnosis and driver fatigue? I personally have found mobile operation a blessing by keeping me awake and more alert on long road trips. Driver fatigue / hypnosis is becoming recognized as about as dangerous as drunk driving, and if a slight distraction can keep someone from falling asleep behind the wheel and killing someone, It's a blessing, not a curse.   Todd - KT0DD 

I agree and actually mentioned the driver fatigue issue in my experience and shared by many many others in this thread in another post. Good point made and shared by the majority.

What the very small percentage like AI8P "doesn't see" is that the professional analyst that more than likely assisted the lobbyist to prove that certain electronics such as transceivers do not share the same distraction level as cell phones was proved in Washington and other states such as recent case in Illinois. LOL!  ::)

Then again the minority is the small percentage and I quote you "are the ones that are out of their minds" is quite true. No matter how much you prove your case they'll only see it their way. Their so blind they'll try to tell a professional race car driver how to race their car ,or an astronaut how to operate their space shuttle. LOL!

Their just plane crazy ,or have NO COMMON SENSE!


73!





Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KT0DD on February 23, 2012, 10:03:01 AM
Well, I guess you must think that people should be encouraged to talk on their cell phones while they are driving to

"keep awake, keep their attention sharp and focussed on their driving."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Dennis

What you are too blind to see is what N2RRA just pointed out. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in the amount of driver distraction caused by a cell phone and talking on an amateur radio as pointed out in the previous post.

Scientists / doctors or whichever professionals conducted the aforementioned tests are most likely to have more accurate and factual information than you do. That is, unless you conducted all these tests yourself and have factual information and documentation to substantiate your findings. You just cannot accept the concept that maybe you just don't "know it all".


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA on February 23, 2012, 05:03:09 PM
Well, I guess you must think that people should be encouraged to talk on their cell phones while they are driving to

"keep awake, keep their attention sharp and focussed on their driving."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Dennis

What you are too blind to see is what N2RRA just pointed out. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in the amount of driver distraction caused by a cell phone and talking on an amateur radio as pointed out in the previous post.

Scientists / doctors or whichever professionals conducted the aforementioned tests are most likely to have more accurate and factual information than you do. That is, unless you conducted all these tests yourself and have factual information and documentation to substantiate your findings. You just cannot accept the concept that maybe you just don't "know it all".

EXACTLY!

Can't forget the guy who started this tread and pushed this subject in three other threads.

WA4D!

Him and AI8P just don't get it!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS on February 26, 2012, 08:15:21 AM
Well, I guess you must think that people should be encouraged to talk on their cell phones while they are driving to

"keep awake, keep their attention sharp and focussed on their driving."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Dennis

Now Dennis, I didn't say cell phones.  I used to drive long haul, and the chicken banders used to talk to each other over the air to keep each other awake.  Plz don't put words in other people's mouths.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on February 27, 2012, 09:33:52 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?


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KT0DD on February 28, 2012, 07:54:22 AM
 I cannot explain in scientific terms, but I'm sure I can find a Phd in psychology who will verify in scientific terms what I say.  It has to do with peoples ability to handle their cognitive functions, focus and priority managment. Using your logic about distracted driving, then police, fire, and govt. officials are a public safety menace using their radios (and MY GOD...their laptops!) while driving. We then must stop airline pilots from using their radios in case they crash a jetliner, and NASA had better figure out mental telepathy (oops...another distraction) instead of radio communication to prevent the astronauts from crashing their spacecraft and killing people!

You cannot ethically make a blanket rule on these kind of activities. Everyone is an individual, and life will always have risk. You can get killed jaywalking or by lightning. It does happen. Humans are not perfect nor immortal. We cannot control everything in life.

Each of us handle situations differently, and unfortunately, some better than others.



Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W2RI on February 28, 2012, 08:37:02 AM
You don't need to be a psychology researcher to recognize how someone on a cellphone can be cognitively distracted. Many of them will do the "cellphone shuffle", walking in circles or back and forth, oblivious to their surroundings. I imagine it is because when on the phone they focus their attention on the voice in their ear, to the extent of ignoring any other input.

Contrast this with someone in a typical conversation, who is quite aware of his or her surroundings, and can respond quickly to stimuli.
In my experience a typical mobile QSO is better compared to a conversation than to a cellphone call.   


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P on February 28, 2012, 09:27:42 AM
So, that is a "No".


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA 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!
 ;)


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AK7V on February 28, 2012, 02:28:34 PM
:) 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.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: KT0DD 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


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: N2RRA 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!


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P 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


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AK7V 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?


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P 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.



Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AK7V 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. :)

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.  


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P 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?


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS 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.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P 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. 



Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: W2RI 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?



 


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AK7V 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.  ;)

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.


Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: AI8P 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.





Title: RE: "Distracted Driving": What Dave Sumner did NOT say
Post by: K1CJS on March 07, 2012, 07:33:29 AM
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.

That wasn't the point.  You're concentrating on doing several things--one of which is listening--as opposed to just listening to a radio.

Quote
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.

Not at all, and not a red herring, since the study you referenced is about remembering facts rather than having a conversation.  Now, if you're talking on a cell phone and start having a heated discussion, you're going to concentrate more and more on that discussion rather than on driving--and that could and does become two way with both people trying to talk at once.  Granted, you can have a heated discussion on two way radio as well, but it won't be the same since you can't talk--or argue--until the other person lets go of the button on his mike.  If you key and start talking, he won't hear you--and you know it.

Granted, that explanation isn't scientific--all too much these days 'scientific' explanations are applied to what should be recognized as common sense issues--but it sure as heck turns out to be what does go on.