Cell phones bane to today's society
Sunday, 12 October 2008
Ron Jackson
Train tragedy example of a growing problem. Cell phone kills 25 people. That may sound like a headline from a checkout counter tabloid. Actually, it's a true story, but it will never be reported that way.
Last month in Los Angeles, a Metrolink commuter train ran a red light and crashed into a freight train. The wreck killed 25 people, including the engineer. National Transportation Safety Board crash investigators are trying to determine the exact cause.
Through cell phone records, the preliminary report has determined that the engineer sent a text message 22 seconds before the train ran through a red light. Further investigation discovered the engineer had sent or received 57 messages while on duty the day of the crash. That is an average of seven messages per hour during an eight-hour shift. When was this guy conducting the train?
Secondhand texting resulted in 25 deaths. Will it take cell phone-related deaths to equal alcohol- or smoke-related deaths before someone calls for a ban on cell phones?
It is now a violation for railway workers to use cell phones while working. The Federal Railroad Administration issued an emergency no cell phone ruling after it was determined that the commuter train engineer had sent a text message just seconds before his train wrecked.
What happens if someone violates the emergency no cell phone order? They may be fined. They may lose their job. Even after the loss of 25 lives due to human, preventable error, there is no unambiguous consequence for violating this safety rule. Then why implement a rule to save lives if it carries no definite penalty?
What happened to the days when no meant no? When it comes to cell phones, the word no has come to mean maybe, sometimes, or OK go ahead. The meaning of no now has as many exceptions as the "i" before "e" rule. The only zero-tolerance policy people seem to observe is the no cell phone rule in the courthouse. That doesn't mean people won't try to sneak them in. The courthouse entrance screenings and the several warning signs work wonders.
Even in places where human safety is not paramount, other public places could use some no cell phone policies. Out of sheer respect, movie theaters and any place of business where a line is required to get service quickly come to mind. No customer should be allowed to conduct personal phone conversations while their transition is in progress. If a conversation is so important, why is it so hard to step away and allow the next person in line to proceed?
Even public schools are grappling with student cell phone usage policies. Many schools that began with a no cell phone policy have relaxed the rules. Some schools now allow students to bring their phones to school but they must keep them in student lockers. Other schools allow students to wear phones to class but the phones must be in the "vibrate" position.
Why do students need cell phones in school? Who needs to call the student during the school day other than a parent? And what about the old-fashioned way when parents would call the school and leave important messages for their kids? "Yes, this is Mr. Doe. Please tell my son Johnny to go straight home from school. Yes, I am aware what he means to tonight's game, but I have taken him off the team because of his grades. Please tell him to go straight home. No, he doesn't need to call home for clarification. No more sports means no more sports. Thank you."
To this day I still adhere to the no gum in school rule. Or has that been changed, too?
— The daily journal
Train tragedy example of a growing problem. Cell phone kills 25 people. That may sound like a headline from a checkout counter tabloid. Actually, it's a true story, but it will never be reported that way.
Last month in Los Angeles, a Metrolink commuter train ran a red light and crashed into a freight train. The wreck killed 25 people, including the engineer. National Transportation Safety Board crash investigators are trying to determine the exact cause.
Through cell phone records, the preliminary report has determined that the engineer sent a text message 22 seconds before the train ran through a red light. Further investigation discovered the engineer had sent or received 57 messages while on duty the day of the crash. That is an average of seven messages per hour during an eight-hour shift. When was this guy conducting the train?
Secondhand texting resulted in 25 deaths. Will it take cell phone-related deaths to equal alcohol- or smoke-related deaths before someone calls for a ban on cell phones?
It is now a violation for railway workers to use cell phones while working. The Federal Railroad Administration issued an emergency no cell phone ruling after it was determined that the commuter train engineer had sent a text message just seconds before his train wrecked.
What happens if someone violates the emergency no cell phone order? They may be fined. They may lose their job. Even after the loss of 25 lives due to human, preventable error, there is no unambiguous consequence for violating this safety rule. Then why implement a rule to save lives if it carries no definite penalty?
What happened to the days when no meant no? When it comes to cell phones, the word no has come to mean maybe, sometimes, or OK go ahead. The meaning of no now has as many exceptions as the "i" before "e" rule. The only zero-tolerance policy people seem to observe is the no cell phone rule in the courthouse. That doesn't mean people won't try to sneak them in. The courthouse entrance screenings and the several warning signs work wonders.
Even in places where human safety is not paramount, other public places could use some no cell phone policies. Out of sheer respect, movie theaters and any place of business where a line is required to get service quickly come to mind. No customer should be allowed to conduct personal phone conversations while their transition is in progress. If a conversation is so important, why is it so hard to step away and allow the next person in line to proceed?
Even public schools are grappling with student cell phone usage policies. Many schools that began with a no cell phone policy have relaxed the rules. Some schools now allow students to bring their phones to school but they must keep them in student lockers. Other schools allow students to wear phones to class but the phones must be in the "vibrate" position.
Why do students need cell phones in school? Who needs to call the student during the school day other than a parent? And what about the old-fashioned way when parents would call the school and leave important messages for their kids? "Yes, this is Mr. Doe. Please tell my son Johnny to go straight home from school. Yes, I am aware what he means to tonight's game, but I have taken him off the team because of his grades. Please tell him to go straight home. No, he doesn't need to call home for clarification. No more sports means no more sports. Thank you."
To this day I still adhere to the no gum in school rule. Or has that been changed, too?
— The daily journal