Recently, S. Davis wrote in message <3D9784C3.7FF0E373@edgewood.com>...

>Cell User wrote:
>>
>> The Wrong Wave?
>> Most Cell-Phone Users Want to Talk, Not Surf
>>
>> By Yuki Noguchi
>> Read entire article at:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14626-2002Sep28.html
>
>All I want is phone service, not netscape or Java on my cell. I
>blame cell usage for 80% of current accidents on highways.


You do? And what evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Let me save you some time: You don't.

Cellphone bans (in NY; which is totally ignored, unenforced, and make the
police look like idiots in court if they try to ticket "offenders") which
result from this ridiculous line of reasoning only serve to dissuade
concerned drivers/cellphone users from using their phones. I have seen no
evidence that in NY State traffic accidents have been reduced by any
measurable amount as a result of the idiot cellphone ban.

I've always found it ironic that NY State, and with it New York City, a city
with arguably the *worst* roads in the country, the poorest, most outdated
traffic facilities and an inability to procure new ones, both concentrate
their (apparently) limited efforts on something like a cellphone ban instead
of, of, I dunno, paying for some more paint so that roads in NY have clear
lanes, removing tolls (like on I-87 in Westco north of Yonkers), adding lane
capacity, etc.

But no...NY comes up with a Cellphone ban...brilliant...(but these are
people who for 20 years or so have been 7+ months late coming up with a
budget, so the fact that their priorities seem skewed doesn't surprise me in
the least.)

Cellphone bans:

1. Distract drivers -- the cables and cords needed for a headset can get
tangled in the steering wheel, gear lever, etc. Throw in a charger and you
have two wires coming out of a phone which can easily get tangled. I can't
tell you how many times I've seen drivers in NY get a call and start
fumbling for the phone and getting their headset on or try to rapidly insert
the phone into a "hands free" holster,  etc, only to have the wires or phone
mounts get tangled/obstructed causing the driver to pay less attention to
the road as compared to just answering the phone without all the
paraphernalia.

The people who cellphone ban advocates project as using cellphones are
generally people who use their cellphones a lot and likely drive a lot; they
are used to driving and are likely more experienced than a theoretical
"common/average driver". Those who are going to be harmed by a cellphone ban
are those who are not as experienced drivers, who need the cellphone for
directions, to check on something at home, etc., and who will end up
spending more time fumbling with the phone than actually talking on it.

So while experienced drivers (and generally, but not always, safer ones)
can easily use their headsets (they probably always have them on :) ), these
are the people who are the least dangerous. Those who don't drive as well,
or who are unfamiliar with a given route are the ones who are already at a
potentially higher risk, and imposing on them the need to plug in a headset
to a cellphone (or if plugged to place the headset in their ear) is often
more cumbersome and distractive than just answering the phone by itself. I
think you will get more accidents overall BECAUSE of the ban than those
which it prevents (if any).

2.. Serves to reduce cellphone use (and in NY with it's Gross Receipts Tax
this means less revenue for the state -- umm...ok, so *some* good can come
out of it! :) ): After cell carriers have made (hopefully) significant
investments to cover a given road, if there is low usage future coverage
improvements may take longer. If people are wary of using their cellphones
without a handset since they "might get caught", or don't want to deal with
the hassle or discomfort of (all?) headsets, they will just wait till they
get home to place a call, and thus not only make less efficient use of their
time but also reduce monthly minutes used. With less usage, carriers build
out less, and this can have safety ramifications as fewer roads and areas
are going to be progressively covered (after de minimis coverage
requirements are met in a given market/license).

Note that this may also serve to lessen the number of "Samaritan"
(non-emergency) calls which motorists make to public safety officials, tow
trucks, the AAA, etc., if they see a disabled car on the side of the road
but don't want to or don't have time to safely stop.

3. Are easily defeated by getting tinted windows and the like; hence, people
who do not want to use headsets will get or keep tinted windows on their
cars, which (from a police perspective) are a public safety problem
(arguably more than non-tinted windows). They also make it harder to see
cars ahead of you, etc., making it a general, if minor safety concern.

4. Generally unenforceable -- If you carry a walkie-talkie in your car, all
you have to do if stopped is say "I was using the walkie-talkie, not the
cellphone" and regardless of what the officer says about pulling your cell
records (let them; tell them the time the officer saw you doesn't match the
cell records or you had just finished a cell call and then tried to get
someone on the walkie-talkie, etc.) If you have a cellphone with
speakerphone tell them you were on speakerphone and were scratching your ear
when the officer stopped you (hence the speakerphone being close to your
ear), etc.

5. A waste of resources: Fortunately, this hasn't been a problem, and I've
never seen anyone in NY stopped for a "cellphone violation". I've even
driven right past NYS Troopers doing their usual radar-laziness (I rarely
see them ever just patrolling; they more than any other state other than
maybe NJ seem to be in it only for the revenue and just sit on the side,
collect tickets, and go off shift after 7 hours.) talking on the cellphone
in clear daylight and never have they even budged. But for every cellphone
ticket they have to write and defend against, they could be getting extra
ticket revenue (a much surer case to make in court) or actually doing some
real police work (well, that's wishful thinking ;( ), or even just leaving
speedy motorists alone while can go defend the nearest Dunkin Donuts.

6. Encourages other more dangerous practices, such as using 2-way pagers,
text messaging on cellphones, etc., to get messages across. (You forget your
headset, but don't want to break the cellphone ban law, so you use an
alternate means to communicate.)

7. Is unfair to Nextel customers who use the push-to-talk DirectConnect
feature, since regardless of how you create a headset, you NEED a button to
press, and thus your hand(s) will not be "free". When Sprint comes out with
this feature on their cellphones (they announced this about a month ago),
you will have two carriers who support a primary feature which REQUIRES
hands-on use.

But anyhow, as detestable, ludicrous, and downright dumb as the cellphone
ban is (and wouldn't you know New York with it's goofy do-nothing Governor
and hopelessly divided legislature [it was a downstate rep from Brooklyn who
initiated the ban, BTW] would be the only state to pass such an idiot law),
the line of (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" which the poster
iterates is even more idiotic -- assuming the 80% figure is hyperbole, the
underlying assumption that *cellphone use* in and of itself is responsible
for accidents is, from what I have read both before and after the passage of
the NYS Cellphone ban, flat-out untrue and totally unsubstantiated by the
(limited) data available.

The ban needs to be repealed as it doesn't appear to have done anything to
increase overall motorist safety and from the experiences of both myself and
colleagues who drive a lot (I drive generally 100,000 miles per year) the
ban serves to distract and confuse drivers significantly more than it helps
(if at all) to lessen driver confusion. (A heated argument where the driver
becomes inattentive will not be less heated nor less distractive on a
headset or if the phone is hand-held; this is not the sort of conversation
to have on a crowded road and a headset will make little or no difference
either way in terms of safety.)

If NYS were really serious about highway safety it would *dramatically*
improve the quality of its roads; maintain its roads; properly plow them in
the winter; increase facilities including bridges, tunnels, and bypasses;
and remove toll plazas and tolls in general (which slow traffic and result
in plaza collisions).

But this is NY, and why make an effort or spend money when you can pass a
stupid law promulgated by some moron downstate rep who probably never leaves
NYC and say "Hey, see, we ARE doing something to improve safety for the
motoring public!" ... I hope the rep who came up with this and those who
voted for it drop through one of the many man-sized potholes on I-278's
sewer grates and then let's see what they have to say about "highway safety"
then!


Regards,

-Doug
d1@interpage.net
www.interpage.net


P.S. We have facilities whereby we can send faxes to state reps, the
Governor (if he can read?) , etc. If anyone wants to design a site to lobby
against the NY Cellphone ban we'd be happy to offer free faxing to fax
constituent correspondence to  the legislature/Governor so that they can
hopefully be motivated by the driving public's concerns to overturn the ban
(and generally improve traffic and road conditions in NYS as well). Please
contact me if interested.