migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) (08/30/89)
Simple solution: Wire the car phone so that the line is disabled when the car is in motion. -- Mike Godfrey "Well, that's the sort of blinkered, Dept of Comp Sci, UofT philistine pig-ignorance I've come to migod@csri.toronto.edu expect from you non-creative garbage." Newsgroups: can.general Subject: solution to car phone problem (was Re: car fone) Summary: Expires: References: <2588@gandalf.UUCP> <662@UALTAVM.BITNET> Followup-To: Distribution: can Organization: University of Toronto, CSRI Keywords: Simple solution: Wire the car phone so that the line is disabled when the car is in motion. -- Mike Godfrey "Well, that's the sort of blinkered, Dept of Comp Sci, UofT philistine pig-ignorance I've come to migod@csri.toronto.edu expect from you non-creative garbage."
oneill@teecs.UUCP (Sean O'Neill) (09/01/89)
In message <1989Aug30.104132.22252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes: >Simple solution: > > Wire the car phone so that the line is disabled when the > car is in motion. GET REAL! How long will it take the average electronics diddler to actually figure a way around this "Simple solution"?? Two, three minutes *TOPS* ! How long did it take radar detector manufacturers to construct a new radar detector band such that the new O.P.P. toy (detector detectors) are now useless? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Sean O'Neill ...lsuc!teecs!oneill | "I always wanted to be an | | Test Equipment Engineering | Engineer. Now I is one." | | Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | | | Phone: (416) 249-1231 Fax: (416) 246-5233 | Lakehead University Alumni | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) (09/06/89)
I wrote: > Simple solution: > > Wire the car phone so that the line is disabled when the > car is in motion. oneill@teecs.UUCP (Sean O'Neill) responded: > GET REAL! How long will it take the average electronics diddler to actually > figure a way around this "Simple solution"?? Two, three minutes *TOPS* ! Fine, so we'll introduce legislation to make such diddling illegal. And anyone caught talking on the phone while their car is moving is subject to stiff fines . How many fuzz-busters do you think are out there since they were made illegal? Some certainly, but a lot less which is much better than "a lot", surely. -- Mike Godfrey "Well, that's the sort of blinkered, Dept of Comp Sci, UofT philistine pig-ignorance I've come to migod@csri.toronto.edu expect from you non-creative garbage."
oneill@teecs.UUCP (Sean O'Neill) (09/07/89)
In article <1989Sep5.203417.12095@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, Mike Godfrey, writes: >Fine, so we'll introduce legislation to make such diddling illegal. *WE* cannot create legislation, but the elected bozo's (MPP's, or MLA's) *CAN*. Thus, look at about 2 years of debates, public hearings, newspaper ads, ... before _any_ legislation is near completion. By that time, mobile phones will be standard equipment on everything from Jaguar Sovereigns to Yugo Innocentis. BTW, there is legislation making diddling with odometers illegal, however, the odds of getting caught and the penalty so minute, that the risk is worth it! Will the same law makers create this phone tampering law? Actually, I agree with your suggestion. However an amendment if I may: When the car is in motion, only "hands frees" operation may be used. (on hook voice activated dialing, remote microphone on the visor or seat belt, electronic volume control which adjusts itself with road noise changes...) This way, both hands are on the wheel (except to terminate transmission), and the mobile can be used for what it was designed for. >And anyone caught talking on the phone while their car is moving is >subject to stiff fines . Again, GET REAL! Do you believe that there are laws stating that anyone caught speeding is subject to stiff fines!! But get on the 401 (a major Toronto highway) any day and there are people driving 40 and 50 K's over the limit. Lets nab these drivers first. (phone or no phone) What about drivers with hi-fi's in their auto's with more dials and switches than the B*eing 747? Or travellers with CB or HAM radios? Will these people be subject to stiff fines if they change a disc or talk to a "good buddy" while their car is in motion? If phone owners will be fined, then we cannot discriminate, and will have to fine anyone with any type of electronics in their car. Getting off topic, I was witness to a serious car accident last year. The automobile we were following went from the middle lane to the shoulder, then back to the center lane. Then trying to compensate, the driver swerved back towards the shoulder at which time the truck tripped up and started rolling. Obviously, the driver was distracted before initially going off the road. But it wasn't because she was on the phone, nor because she wanted to adjust a radio station; it was because she turned around in her seat to "smarten" up the kids who were fighting in the back. Does this mean kids, or drivers with kids, are going to be fined if the kids talk while the car is in motion? (probably not a bad idea afterall :-) ) Oh ya, the gentleman who was behind us immediately called for help and probably saved the trapped man's life with his promptness. Did I mention he called for help from his car phone???!!! -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Sean O'Neill ...lsuc!teecs!oneill | "I always wanted to be an | | Test Equipment Engineering | Engineer. Now I is one." | | Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | | | Phone: (416) 249-1231 Fax: (416) 246-5233 | Lakehead University Alumni | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) (09/07/89)
Look it's rather simple.
It seems that there is a general consensus (at least in this newsgroup!)
that people talking on the phone while in control of their vehicles is
not a good thing. We ("the right thinking people in this country") can
do things to decrease the incidence of this hazard. We can raise public
concern, yell at our MP[P]'s, send letters to the cellular phone companies,
demonstrate at appropriate places etc etc. With luck, we may see some
new laws that attempt to decrease the usage of telephones in moving
vehicles. This will not *stop* it -- nothing will. There will be
challenges to the laws, much like there have been over the drinking
and driving laws (Are spot checks an infringement of my civil liberties?
Should I be able to refuse to give a breathalyzer sample and do so with
impunity? Why shouldn't my passenger be allowed to have a drink?)
But with luck we will greatly decrease the incidence of DWN (driving
while "networking"). That's what we should be after.
not to be
--
Mike Godfrey "Well, that's the sort of blinkered,
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT philistine pig-ignorance I've come to
migod@csri.toronto.edu expect from you non-creative garbage."brian@jtsv16.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (09/08/89)
In article <150006@teecs.UUCP> oneill@teecs.UUCP (Sean O'Neill) writes: >In article <1989Sep5.203417.12095@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, Mike Godfrey, ...[ much ado about car phones deleted ]... How are insurance companies reacting to the presence/absence of car phones? God knows any excuse under the sun causes a rate increase (1/2 B{), but how about the extra little frills like a phone that can double the value of some cars on the road? Anyone with experience? Disclaimer: I don't own a car. I figure I could afford (a) the car, (b) the insurance, (c) the gas or (d) the parking, but not any two of them on only 1 income. -- Brian A. Jarvis, J.T.S. Computer Systems, "Ego as an Art!" Downsview, Ontario ...jtsv16!brian Canada M3H 5T5 (416) 665-8910 A toast - "To our wives & sweethearts: may they never meet!"
robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) (09/08/89)
In article <1989Sep5.203417.12095@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes: >Fine, so we'll introduce legislation to make such diddling illegal. >And anyone caught talking on the phone while their car is moving is >subject to stiff fines . This kind of knee jerk, "let's legislate", reaction to everything really bothers me. The problem we are dealing with here is already covered by laws, "Impaired Driving", whether due to alcohol or other drugs, or because the driver is yakking on the phone or listening to a walkman. The solution is to get the current laws *enforced*, not to invent new ones. It seems that the legal systems of Canada and the US have lost contact with what it is they are supposed to be doing. The current trend of outlawing something because it MIGHT lead to criminal acts scares the beejeebers out of me. Laws should punish illegal acts not try and enforce what the legislature thinks is proper behaviour. The car phone law mentioned above rules out such actions as a *passenger* using the car phone or emergency use while the car is traveling. That's the problem with this kind of splatter legislation, more than the undesired behaviour is affected. Rob. (We grunts never speak for our companies.) -- Robert A. Osborne ...uunet!mnetor!lsuc!isgtec!robert ...utzoo!lsuc!isgtec!robert ISG Technologies Inc. 3030 Orlando Dr. Mississauga. Ont. Can. L4V 1S8
t-wader@microsoft.UUCP (Wade Richards) (09/12/89)
The first reaction to car phones was clearly demonstrated here. They are dangerous, and that they MUST cause accidents. I disagree. This whole discussion was started by someone asking if anyone knows what the stats are on accidents re. car phones. Nobody has answered that question yet. I realize that this is all too common on the net, but I'm going to quote vague stats with absolutely no proof. I read this somewhere, I can't remember where, and if you don't trust me, good --- quote the stats that prove me wrong. There is NO evidence of car phone usage leading to accidents. --- Wade
hwt@.uucp (Henry Troup) (09/12/89)
In article <7669@microsoft.UUCP> t-wader@microsoft.UUCP (Wade Richards) writes: >..., and if you don't trust me, good --- quote the stats that prove >me wrong. > >There is NO evidence of car phone usage leading to accidents. > Well, no stats, but a friend of mine bent his car (Audi 5000) into the gaurd rail because his car phone rang at a time he'd rather not have been distracted. $1000 damage to car, $50 fine and three points for "failing to drive in marked lanes", and he got rid of the phone. The cop threatened to charge reckless driving, but went for the lesser charge because noone else was hurt.
zougas@me.utoronto.ca ("Athanasios(Tom) Zougas") (09/13/89)
In article <202@bmers58.UUCP> hwt@bmerh490.UUCP () writes: >In article <7669@microsoft.UUCP> t-wader@microsoft.UUCP (Wade Richards) writes: >> >>There is NO evidence of car phone usage leading to accidents. >> >Well, no stats, but a friend of mine bent his car (Audi 5000) >into the gaurd rail because his car phone rang at a time he'd >rather not have been distracted. $1000 damage to car, $50 fine What does he do when someone honks, have a heart attack? :-) There are good drivers and there are bad drivers. A good driver turns off his car phone when he does not want to be disturbed. Tom. p.s. next thing you're going to tell me is I can't read the paper while I'm driving :-) -- I can be reached at... CDNNET: zougas@me.utoronto.ca | ARPA: zougas%me.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net CSNET: zougas@me.toronto.edu | BITNET: zougas@me.UTORONTO.BITNET dumb: ...!utai!me!zougas | UUCP: zougas@me.uucp
pbreslin@alias.UUCP (Paul Breslin) (09/13/89)
It makes sense to me that there's no evidence of phones causing accidents. First consider what small percentage of all accidents would involve a car phone. Then what small percentage of that small percentage would admit to yacking on the phone while they smashed into someone/thing. I've often wondered why I've never heard statistics about accidents caused from smoking while driving. Think about it. Cigarettes have been around a lot longer than car phones. It's probably because a large percentage of the people who might gather such statistics smoke while driving. (Now, how many of them have car phones? :-) But I also believe that a phone would provide a greater amount of potential distraction than lighting a cigarette.
len@array.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) (09/13/89)
In article <7669@microsoft.UUCP> t-wader@microsoft.UUCP (Wade Richards) writes: >The first reaction to car phones was clearly demonstrated here. They are >dangerous, and that they MUST cause accidents. This was always my feeling. > I read this somewhere, I can't remember >where, and if you don't trust me, good --- quote the stats that prove >me wrong. > >There is NO evidence of car phone usage leading to accidents. > I also read this and I do remember where -- The Toronto Star. My recollection is that the article actually said that cellular phone users had a BETTER safety record. Something about being especially attentive BECAUSE they were on the phone. However, I find this very hard to believe. I am a skeptic when it comes to using newspapers as the authority for anything. I, too, would like to see someone conduct a study of the relationship between cellular phones and traffic accidents in which the results are presented quantitatively rather than qualitatively. They do it for drunk driving, why not for mobile phones? Len
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (09/14/89)
In article <7669@microsoft.UUCP> t-wader@microsoft.UUCP (Wade Richards) writes:
I disagree. This whole discussion was started by someone asking if anyone
knows what the stats are on accidents re. car phones. Nobody has answered
that question yet.
[... sarcasm about lack of hard evidence ...]
There is NO evidence of car phone usage leading to accidents.
I think you are being a little harsh. Just because someone hasn't
gotten around to doing a 10-year study on something doesn't mean that
you can't use common sense and predict the results. Of course, these
"predictions" should be taken with a grain of salt, but denying the
existence of a problem entirely, as you seem to have done, is just as
silly as parading predictions as the Truth.
--
T. Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.{edu|cdn}
kim@watsup.uwaterloo.ca
{uunet|utzoo|utai|decvax}watmath!watsup!kim
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canadahenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/14/89)
In article <53@array.UUCP> len@array.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) writes: >... I am a skeptic when it comes to using newspapers as >the authority for anything. At the recent Worldcon, S.M. Stirling came up with a good comment on this. "The Newspaper Effect: when you read a newspaper article on a topic you know a lot about, it's *always* *wrong*. Consider the implications." -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (09/15/89)
In article <1989Sep14.152608.24946@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > "The Newspaper Effect: when you read a newspaper article on a topic you > know a lot about, it's *always* *wrong*. Consider the implications." I can add this personal observation: whenever I read a newspaper report about an event where I'm present (not all that often, I admit), the report is _always_ inaccurate. -------------------------------------------- Gerard Stafleu (519) 661-2151 Ext. 6043 Internet: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca BITNET: gerard@uwovax
jmlang@water.waterloo.edu (Jerome M Lang) (09/16/89)
[discussions about car phone and accidents omitted].
Sigh. A new problem ===> we must bring a new law. Car phones may be
a contributing factor to accidents, or they not be. I don't know.
Should we introduce new laws. Why not use existing ones? If someone
drives recklessy because he/she is using a car phone, I don't see the
problem as being the car phone. I see the problem in the dangerous driving.
Use existing reckless driving laws. If someone is in the car often enough
to justify a car phone, they they probably don't want to lose their
licence. (hopefully they don't want to injure themselves or others anyway).
Looking at number of accidents vs car phones is not the whole picture.
Picture this (not that rare) scenario. Serious accident on 401 ahead.
Driver with car phone passes by. Driver phones police. Police/ambulance
get there a few minutes earlier than otherwise possible. Driver phones
CBC, CBC reports trafic tie-up on 401 westbound near ...
No I don't have a car phone. I don't even own a car....
--
Je'ro^me M. Lang || jmlang@water.bitnet uunet!watmath!water!jmlang
Dept of Applied Math || jmlang@water.waterloo.{edu|cdn}
U of Waterloo || jmlang@water.uwaterloo.ca watmath!water!jmlang
"Citoyen de la re'publique du Madawaska" = = 29 Fructidor An CXCVII