***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Maybe the state legislatures which passed those laws decided that
> forbidding "hands free" use would be unenforceable, or placed the
> language in the bills to solve a safety problem without inviting a
> fight with the FCC, knowning that hands-free use is a negligible
> percentage of the potential violations.
How would they (or you) know that? It's not obvious to me that most calls involving vehicle drivers include the use of hand-held phones. After all, BlueTooth earpieces are cheap and ubiquitous these days. And even basic phones almost always have speakerphone capability. I imagine that there are far more hands-free phone conversations going on in the driver's seat than you suspect. After all, the very fact that such drivers are NOT holding a phone up to their ears makes them difficult to identify as phone-users.
Bob Goudreau Cary, NC
***** Moderator's Note *****
I was trying to make an point, and I guess it didn't come across clearly.
I meant that there are always other explanations available when looking at new legislation: for example, the legislatures of several states were quick to ban texting-while-driving because the lawmakers, as a class, don't do any texting.
In like manner, I wonder if they have mandated "hands free" operation as a sop to those who oppose cell phone use by drivers, such as EMT's, Paramedics, Firefighters, and insurance executives, while not making /any/ effective rule, which would please the cellular industry a lot. That's what a politician calls a "win win": they get to say that they passed a law to deal with the problem, without alienating major contributors.
The solution is blindingly simple - just make those who are need/want to use communications devices while driving pass a special skills test to ensure that they are capable of doing so.
One can easily imagine that achieving such a thing will be trivial for most of those professionals mentioned, but would be a challenge for the vast majority of drivers on the roads who are clueless as to how poor their overall skills actually are.
When pilots need to fly a specific aeroplane they need a specific endorsement to show that they have the training and skills to do so, if you want to drive a truck you need special endorsement, it is about time this sort of thing was applied to using phones on the road.
Sounds ok reading the words, but I would observe that here in Southeastern Pennsylvania (USA), they can't even get people to use their turn signals - cops included.
Well, as a 'private pilot', if you want to _rent_ a plane, you do have to show 'currency' in *that* model. If you don't have 'recent' flight time in that aircraft in your logbook, a 'check ride' with a certified instructor pilot is a necessity. For virtually every 'flying club', the club rules contain a similar requirement -- dictated by the insurance companies. :)
And, for 'commercial' aircraft of any size -- even the little twin-engine 'puddle jumpers' -- it is in the Federal regulations that one must be 'current' in that particular variety of aircraft. (There -is- a 'dire emergency' exception, to cover situations like where the entire flight deck is disabled, and the only choice is 'somebody else'. )
If it's your own plane, yes, life can be different. Subject to what your insurance policy says, that is.
"Not exactly.' A basic private pilot's license (PPL) is not good for multi-engine aircraft -- not even a twin engine one like a Beech Queen Air. Can't fly a 'float plane' -- e.g. a Cessna on pontoons-- without a special endorsement, either. And 'rotary wing' aircraft (helicopters) are something
*entirely* different.
Used for _non-commercial_ use, that is true. If you're driving as part of the duties of the job -- _more_ than an 'incidental' part, that is -- you *are* required to have a 'commercial' license from the state, which comes in several varieties, with different size/weight limits. Driving in 'interstate commerce' a -Federal- commercial certification is also required.
I can't speak for -every- state, but for circa dozen mid-west states, circa 1970, there were four classes of 'commercial' driving licenses; 1) taxicab only 2) grade 1 plus straight truck, GVW 5 tons or less, 3) grade 2, except straight truck, unlimited 4) grade 3, plus semi tractor/trailer. There are also usually special rules for a 'small' bus -- under about 12 passengers, specifically for church bus, small shool bus, retirement homes, etc.
Special 'endorsements' are also _required_ to carry, commercially, particular types of loads, notably: 'hazardous materials' in general dry ice, in more than 'trivial' quantities compressed gases, of any type,` d with sub-endorsements for several particular gases) explosives, things that will 'burn fast', but aren't explosives. (two classifications, depending on 'how fast'/'how easily' they burn, once known as 'flammable', and 'inflammable' -- which caused *lots* of confusion among the ill-informed :) _Passengers_
And, lastly, a special endorsement is required to drive a vehicle equipped with air brakes -only-.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Good grief! That's more than I ever wanted to know about _either_ of those subjects!
Let me explain my original remarks in a different context. I was _trying_ to drive home the point that requiring drivers to pass a special exam before using a cell-phone while driving wouldn't be allowed by the "powers that be" - the elites who make a *lot* of money by arranging for laws that - wait for it - allow un- and under-qualified drivers to take on responsibilities that they are not prepared for.
I mentioned pilots for the same reason that B movies play minor cords on the sound track just before the swamp-thang grabs the frightened virgin. It's called "foreshadowing".
My point is basically that a lot of us do silly things like use phones while driving because (in our own little bubble) we *believe* that we are capable of doing these things regardless of any warnings/laws etc.
By requiring people to basically "Put up or shut up" by having to prove competence to be allowed to do something like this may well reduce the incidence of this sort of misuse for a fair section of the population who would probably not have the required skills.
There will always be a section of people who will disobey any law prohibiting using a phone while driving, but for most sane people having irrefutable evidence that they are not skilled enough to do so should be far more effective than "the government says no".
The "One size fits all" way of just saying "No" in a lot of areas isn't good enough to make a lot of people change their behaviour, so how about we change the paradigm by saying: "Prove that you are capable, and you can"?
I don't really know if the "Powers that be" could stand in the way of something like this if they also got their "piece of the action" by doing the testing. ;-)
-- Regards, David.
David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
***** Moderator's Note *****
/My/ point is that it can't happen. Even if cell phones weren't generating billions of dollars for men with a /lot/ of political power, it would be useless to try to qualify drivers to use them: one need only look to the "CB Craze" that followed the truckers' strike in the - what was it? - 1970's, to understand that if motorists see others using cellphones, /they/ will use them, law or no.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:36:43 +1100, David Clayton wrote: .........
.........
You are (unfortunately) probably correct, but wouldn't you just like to see it tried somewhere just to see if it did have any effect on the obviously chronic problem already?
-- Regards, David.
David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
I wasn't even thinking of discriminating between drivers/passengers. Just something like turning off the part where towers hand calls off to the next tower.
Yeah, totally completely politically unthinkable... But personally, I could live with it.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.