Mobile Phone Offence

[Richard C]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

And the research on which this assertion is based ?

[vonhosen]

Richard C said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

And the research on which this assertion is based ?

I said earlier I can't find the link to it at the moment, it wasn't from this country IIRC.

[The Excession]

Finlandia said:

The Excession said:

The biggest difference is that a passenger in the car with you can see when your attention needs to be diverted to the road ahead. A person on the end of a phone cannot, and so will continue to natter into your ear when your attention should be directed elsewhere.

Exactly my point, the person on the other end of a over the air call can not know the traffic situation you are in, and will keep talking when you need to concentrate on the traffic situation, be the other person on a phone or on a PTT device.
Wouldn't you agree?

The Excession said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

I'd ban both if I was going to ban one personally.

Exactly, the ban needs to cover both PTT devices and mobile phones, finally a law enforcerer with common sense. I hope this was what you meant?

I think von meant, ban mobiles and hands-free, but keep the PTT - as said above PTT is a completely different kettle of brain game to using a duplex device like a mobile-phone.

Taken from the above reasoning, how is it any different to talk on a phone than to talk on a PTT device?

Sorry fella, I thought I'd explained thi earlier in my posts.

The (my) reasoning is that these two types of medium are used in completely different ways.

PTT is generally and essential communication between you and base, or some times third party. It's a shared channel, so etiquette dictates that the channel should be kept clear except for essential communication.

Mobile-phone is a private channel where users tend to chat-away for no reason other than they are on a private link and time really isn't money.

As said, I've worked in environments that used PTT and Mobile-Phones, the temptation to carry te conversation into oblivion is comletely removed when you 'have' to use PTT.

Now, let's not confuse mobile-phone based PTT, that is a new technology that the police will have little or no chance of enforcing, but really, when you nedd to and operate on a PTT technology, over a shared channel you our bound by the etiquette, that etiquette dictates that for every moment you are speaking there could be someone in serious grief that is trying to get onto the ch annel. So, you are always trying to keep the channel clear - and hence any comunication is short, sweet, and directly related to the situation.

Now, I've never been a member of the police, ambulance or fire-brigade, nor have I ever been a taxi driver, but if you ever listen to these types of communication, they are short and rarely communicate more than one or two pieces of information. That is not a conversation between you and your mate/misses about what you have planned for the evening.

As said, I spent a year working all around the world where a team of us had UHF radio and were travelling quite a lot of km, it worked fine. My opinions aren't changed, two way private channel comms (mobile-phones and hands-free), are way worse for your attention than an open shared UHF channel on a push to talk device.

Just my experience, and one that von seems to be agreeing with.

I hope that helps a little.
best
Ex

[The Excession]

Finlandia said:

So, why not make a law against the driver reading a newspaper while driving, or using a laptop, or anything else that distracts the driving?

I thought we already had that, Driving With Out Due Care and Attention? No?
Trouble is you are unlikely to get spotted by a Traff Pol.

[Finlandia]

Richard C said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

And the research on which this assertion is based ?

Is it to with the conversational level or is it to do with the MHz band transmissions.

When I use a phone, mobile, or just a normal conversation with anyone I talk and then stop to listen, just as on a PTT device.

Or is it to do with the MHz band, in that case can I use a NMT mobile that uses a different MHz band than the stated ones.

[The Excession]

Finlandia said:

And the biggest issues when using a phone whilst driving are:

1. The need to hold the phone in one hand, thus only leaving one hand on the steeringwheel.
2. The person on the other end does not know the traffic situation and can thus not shut up when the driver needs to concentrate, as a passenger can.
3. You need to press buttons on the phone, thus taking your eyes off the road.

Would you agree on these three main issues?
Then would you not agree that these all are the exact same for a legal to use PTT device?

I wouldn't agree with any of tyhose points.

What I would (politely) ask Finlandia, is if you have ever worked with a PPT device whilst driving a vehicle, and also what you feel about using a duplex-mobile-device (aka mobile phone).

In my experience the two are very different.

As I tried to explain, using PTT is generally an extremely short conversation, because the channel is required by many people. Using a duplex-mobile - it goes on forever.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

I said earlier I can't find the link to it at the moment, it wasn't from this country IIRC.

Not researched in the UK? In Finland a research made showed that driving on the left side of the road tends to get you killed, should that research be adopted into UK legislation too?

[Finlandia]

The Excession said:

Finlandia said:

And the biggest issues when using a phone whilst driving are:

1. The need to hold the phone in one hand, thus only leaving one hand on the steeringwheel.
2. The person on the other end does not know the traffic situation and can thus not shut up when the driver needs to concentrate, as a passenger can.
3. You need to press buttons on the phone, thus taking your eyes off the road.

Would you agree on these three main issues?
Then would you not agree that these all are the exact same for a legal to use PTT device?

I wouldn't agree with any of tyhose points.

What I would (politely) ask Finlandia, is if you have ever worked with a PPT device whilst driving a vehicle, and also what you feel about using a duplex-mobile-device (aka mobile phone).

In my experience the two are very different.

As I tried to explain, using PTT is generally an extremely short conversation, because the channel is required by many people. Using a duplex-mobile - it goes on forever.

Yes I have worked with both devices in field, and I much prefer the mobile phone, the often poor quality of the PTT signal/conversation tends to demand much more of my concentration than the mobile ever has.

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

So, why not make a law against the driver reading a newspaper while driving, or using a laptop, or anything else that distracts the driving?

They could be prosecuted for failing to be in proper control of the vehicle.
A specific offence of using a hand held phone was made simply because the numbers of people doing that is far greater than those who drive using the laptop.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 24th April 17:12

As you say, they could be prosecuted, using a phone, in control or not, you will be prosecuted. Does that make any sense, at all?

Yes, because of the numbers involved & to make it easier to deal with they've a lower burden of proof in that no evidence of diminished control is required, just as they do with speed enforcement where no evidence of danger is required. It's called preventative legislation.

Yes, Von, we know it is; but the principle is being used far too much, and with insufficient justification IMHO.

I do not quarrel with the principle of preventative legislation, but we seem to be taking it to extremes. It is almost as if the thinking in official circles is: "Here is an activity that a lot of people are doing, and while it doesn't seem to be causing much of a problem at the moment, we think it could do, so we'll ban it now!"

To my mind that opens the door to a huge range of restrictions, many of which may not be justifiable at all, and the more people see it that way, the less respect there will be for the law, which is just the reverse of what we ought to be encouraging.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Finlandia]

p1esk said:

I do not quarrel with the principle of preventative legislation, but we seem to be taking it to extremes. It is almost as if the thinking in official circles is: "Here is an activity that a lot of people are doing, and while it doesn't seem to be causing much of a problem at the moment, we think it could do, so we'll ban it now!"

To my mind that opens the door to a huge range of restrictions, many of which may not be justifiable at all, and the more people see it that way, the less respect there will be for the law, which is just the reverse of what we ought to be encouraging.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Very wise words!

I can not express myself quite so well, not being a native speaker of the language.
This is what I have been trying to say all along, in many different matters, ranging from banning mobile phones to speedcameras and redlight cameras that flash you when you move out of the way for emergency vehicles.

[streaky]

The number of drivers who need to turn towards their passengers when speaking to them beggars belief ... especially when the passenger is in the back!

The number of passengers who have no awareness of road conditions is somewhat easier to understand ... even when they are otherwise drivers themselves.

I have had passengers comment on my taciturn nature when driving. Most times they had to tell me again when I'd stopped.

[Paul Evans and the Curls]
"Keep your mind on your driving, keep your hands on the wheel, and keep your snoopy eyes on the road ahead."
[/Paul Evans and the Curls]

Streaky