nanog mailing list archives
Re: London incidents
From: "Mark Foster" <blakjak () blakjak net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () baylink com> To: <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: Re: London incidents
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:The problem with mobile phones in the car has less to do with taking a person's hand off the wheel (although that is something to be concerned about), and more to do with the fact that the driver is distracted by talking to the person on the other end.They say this, but it doesn't work that way for me, as a datapoint. It's not the conversation that's the big thing, IME; it's *holding a phone up to your ear*, which is an action we train ourselves to follow up with *ignoring what's going on around us*. When I talk while driving *without* a headset, my driving's usually fine... it's my *navigation* that fails totally. Using a headset, both are fine. YMMV. Shutting down the networks just because they can be used to trigger a bomb is asinine, though, yes.
Its the first step toward the Police State mentality that I fear is going to develop over time. And damned if I know what to do about it. But the enhanced security required when crossing borders now is case in point. Are they just going to keep on locking down all the freedoms which we've come to enjoy in the last 50 years, in order to prevent their use in assistance of, or vulnerability to, terrorist activity? Thats a _big_ can of worms. Funny the cellphone stuff is being discussed, tho - Local Media had this today: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3343357a11,00.html "People using cellphones while driving are four times more likely to have a serious crash than non-users, and using a hands-free phone does not lower the risk, new research has found. The British Medical Journal has today published the results of a Perth study of drivers using cellphones who have been involved in road crashes requiring hospital treatment." "Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. This was associated with a four-fold increased likelihood of crashing, and the risk was irrespective of age, sex or whether the phone was hands-free. Researchers said more new vehicles were being equipped with hands-free technology. Although this could lead to fewer hand-held phones in cars, the study showed it might not eliminate the risk." I'm saddened by it, because IMHO people who let their driving suffer through cellphone use have gotten it the wrong way around. Personally I let my conversation skills slip :) Safer that way. Seems to make sense. Or is that just too obvious? Mark.
Current thread:
- RE: London incidents, (continued)
- RE: London incidents Sean Donelan (Jul 11)
- RE: London incidents Bill Nash (Jul 11)
- Re: London incidents Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 11)
- Re: London incidents Mark Newton (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Jim Popovitch (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents sthaug (Jul 12)
- RE: London incidents Neil J. McRae (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Chris A. Epler (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Brad Knowles (Jul 12)
- Message not available
- Re: London incidents Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Mark Foster (Jul 12)
- Message not available
- Re: London incidents Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 12)
- RE: London incidents Sean Donelan (Jul 11)
- Re: London incidents JC Dill (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Crist Clark (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Bill Stewart (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Joseph S D Yao (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidentsn David Lesher (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 12)