Howard County radios have multiple channels. We're dispatched on Alpha 1, respond on Alpha 2, and there are multiple other channels used for specific other purposes. I can dial a phone without looking at it and without thinking much about it because the 3-across, 4-down telephone button arrangement is something that most of us have tremendous familiarity with. I'm much less familiar with the radio and still have to think which way do I turn the dial.I would argue that it's much safer to operate a radio. I don't have to change the channel on the dispatch radio similar to dialing. I don't have to dig around for it as it stays clipped in the same location the entire shift. The conversation is different. If I'm talking on the phone there's a whole lot of pleasantries and normal grammatical rules that are simply understood when using a radio. To compare conversations, a simple, "Unit 75 transporting code 2" on a radio becomes something along the lines of, "Hi. Can I talk to North Dispatch? Thanks. Hi, I just to let you know that we're transporting. Ok, call you back when we get there."
Similarly, a radio conversation is largely scripted. If I say, "Unit 75, transporting," I expect to hear, "Copy unit 75" as the response, or as was often the case, a simple click from dispatch activating then releasing the microphone. So unless I get an inappropriate response, very little of my attention is diverted.
So one more expensive gadget to buy, keep track of, charge, and maintain.However that is a case that does not involve the driver. Given the proposal, there will need to be special phones that have the speed cutoff chip disabled. Of course non-official use of said phone would have to be illegal and access to phones where the speed cutoff is legally disabled would have to be restricted.
In an effort to control our lives, the government is going to take away yet another decision that people should make for themselves.
ANy side that says "we are right and anyone who disagree should not talk" is the side I oppose off the bat.
It's an easy fix. Just make Bluetooth mandatory when using your cellphones for calls. No texting allowed what-so-ever.
It's an easy fix. Just make Bluetooth mandatory when using your cellphones for calls. No texting allowed what-so-ever.
Bluetooth only makes the phone hands-free. The point of this thread is that the government wants to prevent drivers from talking on the phone at all, period. No hands-free, no nothing.
...except that Bluetooth doesn't make a difference. The problem is the conversation, not the location of the hands.
Which is, ultimately, what they should do if the argument is safety. I thought the bigger problem is that the technology used was such that it would prevent passenger use in addition to driver use.
It's an easy fix. Just make Bluetooth mandatory when using your cellphones for calls. No texting allowed what-so-ever.
A human being can talk and drive at the same time. So you're saying that if you're having a conversation with the passenger or listening to the radio you're distracted?
Come on!
The radio doesn't require interaction past changing the channel and the passenger is watching traffic conditions, so they know when they need to shut up and let the driver drive. The person on the other end of the phone can't do that.
Oh, and a human being can drive with one hand too.
A human being can talk and drive at the same time. So you're saying that if you're having a conversation with the passenger or listening to the radio you're distracted?
Come on!