Damn cell phones

Sorry I wasn't more clear. By "vehicle-specific", I was referring to
line-of-sight, as in you aim the gun at a single vehicle at a time and only
that vehicle is affected. Apparently, the device required no codes unique
to a given make/model -- it acted on any ignition.

The cop community was also toying with the idea of using a low-profile (it
was rather flat!) rocket-propelled cart which accomplished the same thing.
It would reside under the front bumper of the cop car. When needed, the
pursuing cop would release it and send it speeding under the offending
vehicle, whereby it would send an EMP burst up under the car and knock out
the ignition. I saw this one demonstrated on a tv news broadcast a few
years back.
Another EMP design involves a portable or permanent disc in the road. The
offending vehicle drives over it and bam! The cops flip a switch and the
suspect's ignition is dead.

Anyhoo, I was only joking about actually putting this technology in the
hands of civilians.

 

Sijuki wrote:

Hi...

And you used your cell phone to save these folks, by
using it to call while you continued merrily down the
road??

Besides, no one has suggested or even hinted that they
not be used in an emergency.

Cops have discretion, judges have even more.

Coupla years ago I had to take my youngest grandchild
to the hospital in a hurry. Had to turn left off a
major road onto another major road to enter the
emergency room. Slowed for the red light, then
went ahead. Pulling into the hospital lot a
cop (Winnipeg) followed me. Soon as he saw me
jump out and head into the emergency room carrying
the child he drove off.

Ken

 

While it does shut down the car's ignition, I don't recall any mention of
damage in the reports. Perhaps the engineers were clever enough to avoid
that while also managing to make the engine stop running.
At any rate, the EMP demonstrations I saw indicated it's effective in
bringing a fleeing car to a halt. That's why cops are interested.

In any case, I was j-o-k-i-n-g about civilians being allowed to use it, as I
hinted:

"Okay, so I suggested the above method mostly just to vent. I fully realize
that we can't have millions of drivers out there shutting each other down on
our highways on a whim."

 

Yeah, I thought about asking that Q in my post... ;-) Seriously, though,
it's not cell phones that are the problem, but the stupidity of people
that's the problem. Better to educate the ignorant than to screw the
educated.

 

Yup. Make 'em lose control of the car and kill people that way. Great idea.

 

That's a cop-out. Ten years of education have proven unsuccessful.

The folks that use cell phones in cars will say, educate everybody
else, I'm okay.

It is now known that cell phones increase the risk of having an
accident by four times, and that is about the same as the risk of
driving while drunk.

http://tinyurl.com/6jh6o

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are militant about drunk driving,
but don't care about phoning while driving. They refuse even to
discuss phoning in cars, even though this creates the same risks.
Don't you think that's odd?

It's interesting that the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association (CTIA) has given free wireless phones to MADD chapters
throughout the country along with free airtime. That could explain a
lot!

http://tinyurl.com/5daby

Thanks to intense lobbying and manipulation by the cell phone
industry, we all experience higher risks while driving.

O.

 

========
You would just make it worse because they would be trying to figure out what
happened to the phone and calling the person back...all the while not
watching the road.
===============

 

That's why I said in my first post in this thread that we also need
better legislation and actual enforcement--education doesn't simply mean
advertising and classes, Otto.

In a properly functioning society we don't take the law into our own
hands--the examples cited in this thread are enough to demonstrate why
it would be a bad idea in the case of cellphone jammers.

 

Yes, the different responses have by now convinced me of that.

O.

 

How about we simplify all this (in the US, at least) and declare that
anyone who has an accident while talking on a cell phone is guilty of
contributory negligence, therefore their insurance doesn't pay for the
repairs?

 

An interesting idea. Might be the most effective in curbing the problem.
Would have to be carefully thought out, though--how, for example, to
decide who's at fault in a sudden stop on the hwy? How to prove that the
person following a) was on the phone at the instant of the accident
(subpoenaing the bill would not be enough to correlate the times); and
b) would have been able to react more quickly had they not been on the
phone?

Seems like it might be too complex to determine with certainty, and
would lend itself to abuse--I sure as hell don't want to have to fight
the legal weight of my insurance company to prove that I *wasn't* on the
phone if they were to say that I was.

 

Then I hope you never have an emergency. I know the person I helped
last week when he skidded his Chevy Malibu in a quarter inch of standing
water on the road in the fast lane, and landed in on the guardrail in
the slow lane, was mighty happy to use my cell phone to call AAA because
he didn't have one of his own. The nearest pay phone was on the other
side of the highway, and crossing US Highway 1 in New Jersey on foot is
suicide in clear weather, much less heavy rain.

At that point, I decided that driving on bald tires like this guy was
doing was probably just as dangerous as talking on your cell phone while
driving.

Oh spare me your politics.

 

m262007 wrote:

Exactly. It amazes me how a lot of the people who want cell phones
banned (and not just while driving, BANNED) are the same types who also
complain about how cars are more expensive now because they have to have
things liek ABS, daytime running lights and airbags. But isn't it the
same thing? In both cases, we're MAKING everyone have something they
don't want (or, eliminate something they do want) because they're not
trusting people to take care of themselves.

Yes, cell phone use should be banned while driving, and you can bet mine
stays in the back seat where I toss it, turned off while I'm on the
road. But the best defense isn't jamming, it's keeping your eyes out
for people who are doing stupid things while driving, just like you you
would be on the look out for a drunk driver or any other threat. If
they're swerving, or clearly not paying attention, then I stay the hell
away from them, and if they manage to get in an accident with me anyway,
then you better believe that I'm gonna hit them in their pocketbook.
the best lesson learned is the expensive one.

It also strikes me that people are hot and bothered about cell phones,
yet have absolutely NO problems with the kind of stuff that police
officers carry in their vehicles. You yacking on your cell phone is a
menace, but what about the guy or girl in blue who is yakking on their
radio (and anyone with a police scanner can tell you it's not always
about their work), yakking on THEIR cell phone when s/he doesn't want a
conversion to go out over the air, probably eating lunch on the go, AND
typing and looking at a mobile computer terminal, all in a Ford Crown
Vic that seems to have a penchant for blowing up (see
http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com). And these are the people MOST
likely to drive aggressively because they have to in order to respond
quickly to calls.

 

Ray L. Volts wrote:

Rocket propelled carts being launched by police cars in pursuit? There's
a low risk set up! Would the cart be tethered to the police car? Have
it's own guidance system? Sounds like a low powered torpedo with wheels!

What's the range of an EMP sufficient to shut down a car, e.g., anybody
nearby going to get shutdown as well?

IMHO hands free cell phones don't address the real problem, i.e.,
diverting the driver's attention if the call gets "complicated".

 

Ray L. Volts wrote:

It's that or firearms - which is the most cost effective for the US as a
whole?

 

I am one of those people that recognized early on that I could not
handle cell phone use and drive at the same time......I was one of those
early cell phone adopters back in 1984 (remember those heavy bag
phones?).I left work from home one day and tried to make a call,and
promptly left the road and ran up on the curb parking strip.....was that
ever embarrassing! Fortunately for me no one ever saw it as I was on a
lightly used road.
I said to myself,"This will never work!" So,I put the cell phone in the
back seat and it stayed there only to be used for emergencies.I have
since got a newer "pocket model",but I still do not use it while
driving.
WHY CAN'T SOME PEOPLE JUST RECOGNIZE THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS? It seems
reasonable to me.Not everyone is a multi-tasker.

 

Heck, I see police officers talking on THEIR CELL PHONES more than their
radios!

 

Up here in Ontario, they HAVE NO RADIOS in the cruisers. All they have
is the "data terminal" or Laptop computer, which does all the
communicating.

I believe it does have voice capability, but I'm not sure. Then they
have their Walkies.

 

No.

"99% of OPS TRANSMISSIONS ON THIS SYSTEM ARE DIGITALLY MODULATED AND NOT
MONITORABLE USING CURRENT SCANNER TECHNOLOGY. WITH THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT THESE
TRANSMISSION SHOULD THEORETICALLY BE MONITORABLE. THE LEGALITY OF THIS IS
UNCLEAR THOUGH.

ADDITIONALLY THIS SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF ENCRYPTED DIGITAL TRANSMISSIONS."

http://www.iprimus.ca/~ebowlby/mainpage.htm

 

=YES=
Have it's own guidance system? Sounds like a low powered torpedo with
wheels!

==Nope, only the car it is UNDER