From today's News-Gazette:
"You've got to start somewhere," said Smyth, a Democrat who represents Ward 1. "We're a city with a lot of pedestrian and bicycle activity. We've seen some deaths.
"The fact is, the use of a cell phone in a car or vehicle distracts you, no matter how good you think you are at multi-tasking," he said.
Discuss.
Sounds like a great way to make money to me. Think about those people driving on the Interstate from Indiana, or Ohio, or Washington D.C with their phones on.
YipeeSkippee, full treasury here we come. Man just think, you pull off the Interstate for gas or bathroom or lodging and it costs you $200. I would have cops sitting at every station and every road into town. If they stop 15 a day.....15 X$200 = $3,000 X 365 = $1,095,000. And the Football and Basketball games....oh man....what a gold mine.
This is a matter for Naomi (good luck), not the Cities. Stop taking me to raise.
There are already plenty of laws in place that make such activities against the law, enforce them. Get in an accident and have a McDonald's drink in your hand and see who is to blame. It ain't Mc Donald's.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I believe it goes something like this----'the road to (somewhere) is paved with good intentions'. Looks like Urbana is paving that road with this cell phone ban proposal. The good news, according to Rex's calculations, they will not even have to sell bonds to pay for it. Easy to understand why we have the City of Champaign.
This is one of those laws that really works best when enacted for an entire metro area, not for a slice of it. When it's only against the law when you cross Wright St. this law will be that much more difficult to enforce and will cause confusion for the many visitors to our town. However, I understand that one city shouldn't have to wait for another to act and do what they think is right. I was glad when Urbana went ahead with the smoking ban, and when they kept it on the books even though Champaign repealed it.
Personally, I don't use my cell phone much in the car, but there's no question it is distracting when I do. At the same time, I will/would find it annoying to not be able to on occasion. Most of my in-car calls are very short and infrequent.
By way of prediction, I expect this thing will pass, but with only four votes.
Urbana has a strong record of disdain for drivers in their town - this would just be one more notch in the belt.
They should ban cell phones for pedestrians and bicyclists since they are the ones most likely to behave eratically and not pay attention to their surroundings. A car in Urbana is moving at under half its top speed in a highly controlled environment with lots of stop lights and signs. I've never heard of a driver suddenly veering onto the sidewalk because of a cell phone, but lots of pedestrians so distracted by their phone conversations that they walk into the street without looking.
The fact is, the use of a cell phone in a car or vehicle distracts you, no matter how good you think you are at multi-tasking," he said.
(a) Hopefully, Mr. Smyth meant the adverb "well," rather than the adjetive "good," but one would not know given the rather incoherent commentary "Use a carbon tax to pay for transportation initiatives" he wrote in the July 27 2007 News-Gazette.
(b) What was the word we used for "multi-tasking" 25 years ago ??
The adjective "good" is correct here--he is saying "how good you are AT multitasking", not "how well you are multitasking". You can't fault his grammar in this instance, even if you disagree with the proposal.
I am 100% for this.
I am also 100% for this:
"They should ban cell phones for pedestrians and bicyclists."
Peds with cell phones are a friggin' nuisance. They walk out into the street oblivious to their surroundings. Think dead girl from Deerfield who was run over by Volk & Costello.
Warrior,
To quote the Fonz....Correct-O-Mund-O
Remember the very sad death of the young college student who was killed by the bus on Chalmers and 6th Street?
Care to guess what she was doing when she walked into the side of the bus?
02:39 PM, Anonymous
One of my favorite trivia questions. Acutally "multi-tasking" was the operation created and coined by MacIntosh for their operating system which would allow the opening and use of multiple applications, long before Windows. A little icon in the upper right hand corner of the screen would allow you to see what applications you had open and could use without waiting for them to open. Multi-tasking was the CAUSE of the memory increase needs in computers. Bill Gates then copied the system and said it was not a MacIntosh system.
Right ........... he still doesn't have it correct.
Curious,
I agree with almost all you have said, but this;
"this law will be that much more difficult to enforce and will cause confusion for the many visitors to our town"
Nope not confusion, but it will certainly cause some very irate motorists who get clobbered with the $200 when they cross into Urbana. Think about the number of people you see each day driving and using a phone, multiply that by $200 and by the number of days in a year. The City of Urbana is not going to take a pass on that citation money.
Besides, there are many other conditions that contribute to horrible accidents. For instance;
1. Does anyone know if Mr. Wilhelm had a phone with him or an iPod?
2. How many times have you seen bicyclists with some kind of entertainment devise in their ear?
3. How many times have you seen pedestrians with a phone or iPod in their ear, some hand held computer game and not paying attention to cars or bicycles? (Remember, Urbana has more pedestrian traffic walking to work.....da ...da....da, well lets make sure they are safe from themselves also. Don't want them to be walking on scooped sidewalks into the path of a car because they couldn't hear it)
Once again, the City of Urbana is proposing (and passing without reservation) "knee jerk" legislation that in itself is ineffective and does not properly address or solve the problems.
But consider this, if this was a local government problem that really needed solving, then the solution would be to fine not only the motorists but also the pedestrians and bicyclists $200 for each phone AND iPod violation. Remember the old "Rules of the Road" catch phrase;
"Keep your eyes and ears open and look left first..."
Probably would reduce the number of accidents, but rest assured it would also change the City Council the next election. Damned few people would vote for someone who caused them to be clobbered by a $200 fine for walking with an iPod in their ear.
How many voters use cell phones in their cars on a regular basis? My guess even Naomi does, so maybe she is not a big fan of being clobbered with a $200 fine either.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Does anyone know if Mr. Wilhelm had a phone with him or an iPod?
I'm pretty sure that he did not, since he seemed to be pretty careful about safety. The day he was killed, he was riding on the paved right shoulder of the highway and wearing a helmet. The driver was downloading ringtones onto her cellphone and swerved so far off the road that she hit him with the driver's side of the car. Her license should have been suspended by then, but the Circuit Clerk's office hadn't forwarded all of her violations to the Secretary of State's office.
"Her license should have been suspended by then, but the Circuit Clerk's office hadn't forwarded all of her violations to the Secretary of State's office."
And, of course, because the bureacracy moves so slowly, now this accident is used as a bludgeon (by others, wayward) to ban cell use. Brilliant!
I think I'll start pushing for a new law that bans slow moving bureaucracies. How many lives will that save?
I think I'll start pushing for a new law that bans slow moving bureaucracies. How many lives will that save?
Heh. Probably a lot. I've actually met the Wilhelms when I helped out a little with the web page, and they're very nice people. The accident had a lot of factors - exceptionally bad driver, slow-moving bureaucracy, and technology. So I don't think you can point to one thing and say, "It's all the fault of ____!"
Wayward or Gordy
I am a little confused, are you saying her license should have been suspended before she had the accident, but was not because of a paperwork SNAFU or she should have had her license suspended because of the accident?
Gordy,
Great idea, have you bounced it off Naomi?
Wayward
"pretty sure"? One of the reasons I ask is I worked on the design for Rt 130 in that area and we did not design the shoulder for traveling, it was designed for emergency use only and to provide vehicles and their drivers with adequate room to clear the traveled lanes.
We also designed a "Fog" line painted along the edge of the pavement to indicate to motorists and bicycles where the edge of the pavement was situated.
One of the things that happens is when a car passes from the traveled lane to the shoulder or emergency stop area, is it makes noise, some even have a "rumble strip" there. I was wondering if he had something that was affecting his ability to hear that noise?
I have not doubt he was trying to act as safely as he could and trying to do everything he could to be safe. And the courts have found her to be at fault, but I was wondering.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Woo Hoo!
Aldermen in Urbana apparently have nothing better to do than create laws to fight stupidity, like the level of stupidity that Ms. Stark displays.
Forget that fact that Matt Wilhelm wasn't stuck and killed within Urbana city limits. He was riding a bicycle along a very busy state highway. Of all the places that I'd ride a bicycle, along Illinois 130 is NOT one of them. Sadly, Mr. Wilhelm showed a certain level of flawed judgement himself, by being where he was on a bicycle.
Bicycle path, anyone?
Can someone find Mr. Smyth something MEANINGFUL to fight for?
Her license should have been suspended before the accident because of her other violations. As far as traveling on Rt 130, I've ridden my bike on the shoulder and have also seen other cyclists do this. There are lots of fast-moving cars on that highway. Sure, the car may have made noise as it swerved onto the emergency pavement, but if a car's bearing down on you full-speed, being able to hear it won't necessarily help. It's illegal for cyclists to use headphones on the road, just as it is for drivers.
Couldn't Urbana just ban cars?
I was just thinking what's the one thing wrong with Urbana? And the winner is, evidently...cell phones in cars.
More legislation for the sake of legislation. Just dumb. Of all the distractions found in cars--talking, fighting, eating, reading, make-up, finding loose change, iPods, etc--cell phones are not a big deal. Just another policy fad. Here's what this law amounts to in Chicago: you put the phone in your lap when you pass a cop.
And in Urbana the result will be the same. The law will be ignored, very few tickets will be issued, and legislators can pat themselves on the back for helping us poor dumb taxpayers live to the standard they see fit.
Maybe Smythe can make Urbana an "internal combustion engine" free zone.. or a medical waste free zone...or an enterprise free zone... how about designating the entire city as a public park and ban cars from the parks..
Dan, Dan, Dan,
You forget the parking revenues.
But you are probably right, that will not stop them, they will just charge us for walking on the sidewalks we scoop.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
If Urbana is in the "banning" mood, I would like it extended to electric vehicles which are somehow exempted from vehicle safety tests. If one of those ran into my Prius, the driver would surely die unless our total speeds were less than about 5 mph. Even then, the driver of such a vehicle could end up very disabled. I have not doubt several lawyers would be involved if you should ever be involved in an accident with one of those 'death traps' I see motoring around Urbana streets.
Entertainingly enough, it's already a violation of FCC codes to speak on a transmitter/receiver (think CB/Ham) while driving. Technically, you're supposed to pull over to the shoulder and stop before using any two-way communication device on a federally supported road. The irony is that no branch of law enforcement is empowered to enforce FCC code.
Prairie,
So Convoy was a bunch of law breakers.....Oh Woe is me, my past is dissolving....
Is that a hanging offense?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Maybe Urbana can ban Michael Fuerst ??
What does it mean to "use a cell phone"?
My Treo has a calendar function. If I "use it" to look at a date is it a violation off Smyth's law? What if I use the stylus to pick wax out of my ear?
It also has blutooth and if it rings the audio comes out of the car audio system, even if the phone is in my purse. Is that a violation?
Smyth is an idiot. I can eat lasagna, while brushing my teeth while driving, but not use a phone?
Rex,
"One of my favorite trivia questions. Acutally "multi-tasking" was the operation created and coined by MacIntosh for their operating system which would allow the opening and use of multiple applications, long before Windows. A little icon in the upper right hand corner of the screen would allow you to see what applications you had open and could use without waiting for them to open. Multi-tasking was the CAUSE of the memory increase needs in computers. Bill Gates then copied the system and said it was not a MacIntosh system.
Right ........... he still doesn't have it correct."
Yeah... Not really.
Multitasking existed long before the Mac. Mainframes used preemptive multi-tasking for years, though it was generally called time-sharing.
As far Bill Gates copying the Mac, well, no. He and Steve Jobs both copied the Xerox Star. As Bill Gates is quoted as saying to Steve Jobs when Steve accused him of stealing the interface:
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
Considering that the current Mac interface is a port of BSD Unix with a Next window manager, and that one of their marketing features is its ability to run Microsoft Windows concurrently (via Parallels), all this is pretty much mute. Anyone still engaged in interface wars is living in the past. Most Unix or Linux based operating systems will allow the user to configure the interface however they like, including emulating either Windows or Mac. (Ubuntu is free, and is functionally as good as, or better than either, by just about any metric.)
"Smyth is an idiot. I can eat lasagna, while brushing my teeth while driving, but not use a phone?"
Yes. And he's going to use the memory of a young man's tragic death to try to pass a law that wouldn't have saved his life in the first place.
To be fair, it is not just Mr. Smyth trying to pass a city ordinance by referring to the tragic death of Matt Milhelm. Here is the misssion statement from the Matt's Law Coalition web site:
"Our mission is to improve safety on the roads through education and legislation that specifically addresses the careless and negligent use of interactive technology including but not limited to cell phones, e-mail and I-Pods."
The web site is, (obviously), 100% supportive of the proposed Urbana ordinance.
It's too bad Mr. Smyth never talks about doing something about the open selling of crack cocaine in the Sunny Crest area of the City. There have been more people killed in shootings over drugs than all the people killed on bicycles. Where is the outrage??? I guess if it's drug dealers shooting each other it's not a big deal, Urbana has a lot bigger problems than cell phone use by people driving cars. I don't hear Smyth whining about the tax that those cell phones generate.
07:02 AM, Anonymous
MacIntosh coined the phrase multi-tasking. It applied to desktop computers and that operating system.
Let me get this right, XEROX had the mouse, screen operating system before MacIntosh? You opened a XEROX computer and the screen had the folders, etc. on it? You could run many programs on the XEROX desktop at the same time before MacIntosh could? I just don't remember that.
Time sharing was renting time from a main frame computer to run a program, and many time sharing customers were not using the same program at the same time. If same customer was using a different program they were running the different programs on two separate teletype-modem stations.
When I worked for Daily and Associates, we time shared with the Burroughs 6700(?) at the U of I, and indeed could run the COGO program (Coordinate Geometry) or the HEC program (Water Surface) or TR-55 (Routing Program), but we could not run them simultaneously.
The Main Frame, could run the all at once, but it was called time sharing, not multi-tasking (as you stated)
Enough on that though, this blog is about the ordinance and multi-tasking was a fun question raised by a previous post.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I understand the sentiment behind this, but if you've ever driven many of the major roads in town, you'll know that cell phone use is just one of many distractions that drivers face. yesterday I watched someone in a car in front of me reading the newspaper while driving down the street. Will Urbana outlaw all distractions, because that's what it's going to take. Will this apply only to cell phones, or all electronic devices? What about cars with tv's being sold in them? I know the driver can't see them, but that is surely a distraction.
Is drinking a beer while setting on the john smoking a cigarette and talking on a cell phone and reading the newspaper, Multi tasking????
"I understand the sentiment behind this, but if you've ever driven many of the major roads in town, you'll know that cell phone use is just one of many distractions that drivers face."
Another big distraction, which is proven by research to be similar in magnitude to talking on a cell phone, is having a conversation with someone else in your car. I understand that fiddling with the phone like the person that hit Matt Wilhelm is more distracting than that, but most people wouldn't be stupid enough to distract themselves so fully. If there's one thing you can't successfully legislate away, it's people being stupid. Given that conversations in the car won't be outlawed, I'm not sure I see the point of the proposed ordinance. It won't really take care of the problem.
"To be fair, it is not just Mr. Smyth trying to pass a city ordinance by referring to the tragic death of Matt Milhelm. Here is the misssion statement from the Matt's Law Coalition web site:"
I thought the central focus of the Matt's Law folks was to pass a law providing for a distracted driving penalty, to give prosecutors a charging option in situations like what happened with Mr. Wilhelm.
"If there's one thing you can't successfully legislate away, it's people being stupid."
Co-freaking-sign.
"Given that conversations in the car won't be outlawed, I'm not sure I see the point of the proposed ordinance. It won't really take care of the problem."
Of course not. Mr. Smyth doesn't seem to care about that.
Some studies (they're mixed) show that conversations with passengers in the car are not as distracting because the passenger is also somewhat aware of road conditions, and tend to naturally pause the conversation when it's clear that the driver needs to look at the road. That, plus the fidelity of most cellphones is pretty crappy (I can barely understand anyone on them when I'm standing still putting my full attention into it), surely that's also a factor. Talking in person I don't have to concentrate on trying to understand, and ask "what?" every five seconds.
I was on a road trip this week, I can tell you that every time we encountered a seriously deficient idiot driver (zooming along I-80 among trucks, no less, and occasionally swerving oddly when they'd notice they were drifting over into the next LANE) every time we'd look over, and sure enough, it'd be someone yakking on the damn cell. I only wish I had a portable jammer.
As someone who only has a cellphone for emergency use that rarely is even turned on, I wonder how people managed to survive without being on the phone 24/7 all these years previous?
And yeah - pedestrians hogging up the sidewalk yakking on their phones annoy me too. Move off to the side, folks, or at LEAST walk in some semblance of a straight line, 'k?
Curious,
I couldn't agree more, I previously said;
"Once again, the City of Urbana is proposing (and passing without reservation) "knee jerk" legislation that in itself is ineffective and does not properly address or solve the problems."
and you concurred by saying;
"I'm not sure I see the point of the proposed ordinance. It won't really take care of the problem."
We are absolutely on the same page.
And sadly, as you also recognize, even a staunch supporter such as yourself, really has no input to the whims of the Mayor and City Council, it is their City, not mine, not yours, not the voters, but their City and the will do as they Damn Well Please.
as you said above:
"By way of prediction, I expect this thing will pass, but with only four votes."
or as Gordy said;
"Of course not. Mr. Smyth (et al) doesn't seem to care about that. (comment added)
Your concerns are precisely the reasons, I am running for Mayor. The leader should have recognized all of the things that you and others immediately recognized and reeled in this hair brained suggestion before it got to the public eye. If someone such as yourself who certainly are most supportive of the Council, is disturbed at the shortsightedness and lack of effectiveness, then obviously there needs to be a leader that recognizes the same and tempers the sheep, by ringing the leaders bell. Laural's silence is deafening on this matter.
I have said this before but here it is again. Reponsible legislation addressing problems consists of 4 parts, and all are of equal importance:
1. Identify the problem from public input. (Is it a pubic problem, or a personal problem?)
2. Define the problem completely, and decide if this is a matter for Government involvement. (Government does not need to be involved in changing diapers)
3. Formulate a complete solution, complete with penalties, if necessary and decide if the solution creates additional problems or infringes on other rights. (Avoid creating problems by solving problems.)
4. Provide a new or identify a revenue source for the implication of the problem. (Never mandate unfunded solutions, on the backs of the public or businesses)
My solution is as I originally stated, this is a Statewide issue, not a local issue because of the exposure of visitors to a penalty that cannot be properly notified to all travelers. I would first research all State laws and determine if other laws addressing distraction are already in existence, if so, modify those laws to also include the types of distractions discussed herein. If not, then I would start with number 2, above and proceed on.
Here is the weak link, the solution involves Naomi and having set beside her time after time in public forums, I can assure you she is clueless about the 4 steps above.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I was on a road trip this week, I can tell you that every time we encountered a seriously deficient idiot driver (zooming along I-80 among trucks, no less, and occasionally swerving oddly when they'd notice they were drifting over into the next LANE) every time we'd look over, and sure enough, it'd be someone yakking on the damn cell. I only wish I had a portable jammer.
More often than not, the cell phone is merely another symptom of bad drivers. I don't think it's the cause (although, it's certainly an aggravating factor) - after all, there have always been bad drivers, even before cell phones.
I think that increasing the speed limits in town, while leading to a huge increase in fatalities in the short-term, might eventually cause Americans to care about driving.
The creation and proliferation of low-cost insurance, huge vehicles, advanced safety features, and automatic transmissions have really made driving a low-risk activity requiring little attention. If we banned automatic transmissions, I honestly think we'd see a decrease in both the number and severity of accidents - manuals require at least a little attention to the road, and make driving a slightly more conscious act.
The issue is the health, safety, and welfare of a community--in the large sense. Driving is not an individual action. Driving is a exponentially complex activity. There is not a piece of research that indicates driving and talking on any form of cell phone is a safe driver combination. Some of the first research done at the University of Rhode Island over 6 years ago proved this unquestionably. Research that I observed at the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan further confirmed this information. And here at UIUC, Art Kramer's research added to the growing data that driving and talking on the cell phone are mutually exclusive. How many more times do folks need to be "hit on the head" to understand that it just is not in the best interest of anyone to drive distracted?
It is too bad that Charlie does not feel it is policially feasible to push this further to apply to bicyclists and walkers who are so cognitively involved with whatever phone conversation that they are totally oblivious to what is going on around them and in turn, jeopardize others' safety. Recent research from the cognitive psychologist are beginning to reaffirm what most of us already know that one really can not multi-task with a 100% attention: so why are we all kidding ourselves?
I also refer these observations to people who are adjusting a car radio while driving, eating while driving, drinking while driving, reading a map while driving, reading a paper--of any sort--while driving.
Pattsi Petrie
without a doubt i have seen plenty of people make bonehead moves in their cars while talking on cell phones, but something tells me these are the same type of people who are just as easily distracted by their car radios. Furthermore, it is legal to drive with one hand, and legal to use a hands free cell. hmmmmmmmmmmmm...... why cant i drive with one hand and hold a cell with the other....
"Multitasking" was first used as a noun to describe a single-CPU computer processing multiple threads in 1966, long before the Macintosh was on the scene. According to the OED, it was in the journal Datamation.
This ends today's episode of Pedantry Online.
Sigh.
Yes. XEROX had the mouse and icon based windowing manager YEARS before Apple did. The Xerox 8010 Star Information System was commercially introduced in 1981. Steve Jobs visted the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in 1979 where the demoed the system to him along with Smalltalk-80 (Object Oriented programming). Apple team members saw the Star system at its commercial introduction in 1981, and they began work on LISA based on the ideas they saw there. (They later claimed never to have visited PARC or to have seen the Star System, but during legal proceedings either during their attempt to sue Microsoft, or them being sued by Xerox, documents came out that were letters from the Apple team to Xerox thanking them for the tour and expressing admiration for the Star system).
Multi-tasking operating systems have been around much longer. PDP-11's ran cooperative multitasking OS's of various flavors. Unix has been runing preemptive multitasking since 1969. IBM 360's ran TSO. The last two of these are not only multi-tasking, but multi-user. Heck, back in 1979-1981 OS-9 which Radio Shack used on it's low end Color Computer was multi-tasking.
Wow, Apple was lucky to have made it with all these other companies doing it first.
So Apple does not hold the patent on the Mouse?....What is that number on the back of my 128K mouse, something else?
So what you are telling me is Apple should not have been suing Bill Gates all these other companies should have been suing him because they had his windows system long before he copied it from Apple.
This is really confusing.
I must really be confused on the definitions too. I thought multi-tasking was the ability of a single user to open and use many applications simultaneously on the same computer and multi-user was many users hooked to the same computer who could be each be using a different application.
How many times did Apple get sued for copyright and patent violations of XEROX and the other companies? Must have been hundreds
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
And here at UIUC, Art Kramer's research added to the growing data that driving and talking on the cell phone are mutually exclusive.
No way. I'm certain there is an IQ threshold where driving and talking become "mutually exclusive," but I have yet to see it.
Recent research from the cognitive psychologist are beginning to reaffirm what most of us already know that one really can not multi-task with a 100% attention: so why are we all kidding ourselves?
If you need 100% of your attention to drive, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a car.
THe patent number on your mouse is probably related to a specific improvement that Apple might have made to it. The first mouse was invented in 1963 at SRI (Stanford Research Institute). It had wheels and gears. Xerox invented the first ball mouse in 1972, and it functioned very much like every ball mouse used through the 1990's.
At the time Xerox was being incredibly innovative and coming up with this technology that both Microsoft and Apple copied and called their own, the Xerox legal department specifically in charge with patents was swamped by a Justice department anti-trust suit that basicly made them relinquish most of their rights to copier technology. Also at that point in time, the status of software only patents (for the GUI and operating system) was very much in limbo. The execs made the monumentally bad decision not to pursue patents on most of the tech. Xerox did try to sue in the late 80's over some of the tech that Apple was using but lost because of statute of limitations issues.
Generally, multi-tasking refers to the ability of a computer to manage multiple tasks (or processes) at the same time. There are different ways this can happen. The processes can relinquish the processor when waiting for slow hardware like disk access. This is cooperative multi-tasking. Preemptive multi-tasking is implemented by the kernel which looks at all of the processes and decides when one has used enough cycles, and which process should next receive the cpu. Both of these methods were well implemented in mini and mainframe computers and even personal computers prior to the Mac. (Again, Unix - 1969). Time sharing has a couple of different connotations. One is the type you mentioned where several entities will purchase time on a common machine, either as terminal time, or as jobs sent to the cpu. There usually exists an accounting trail indicating which account has used how much cpu time. This is really a subset of multi-tasking. The computer is multi-tasking, but it is also keeping track of who started which processes and how many cycles each one got. You don't see much of this now, but it was common back in the day when 5 minutes of cpu time cost real money.
Bottom line. No Apple should not have been suing Bill Gates. The fact that they lost badly in the "Look and Feel" war bears that out. Xerox scientists were brilliant and years ahead of their time (Look at the Xerox Alto - first computer to use a mouse - 1977 - 6 years before LISA), but Xerox management was myopic and focused on copier hardware rather than the software revolution.
You are very well versed on this subject, thank you.
You have provided sound and detailed information that I will certainly remember.
Sorry to just have to address you as 01:52 PM, Anonymous
You should not remain anonymous, you are certainly a plus to this site.
Again, thank you.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
There is a poll on the News-Gazette website and the cell phone ban supporters are winning.
"There is a poll on the News-Gazette website and the cell phone ban supporters are winning."
Of course they are. The mentality in our community and our country today is that government is the solution to all problems. Even hugely exaggerated problems that wouldn't be addressed by the proposed law anyway.
Can anyone post the language of Smyth's proposed ordinance? There is no way that Julia Rietz will take such a ticket to trial, so it will be left to Urbana municipal court to prosecute with city attorneys. Getting a date for a trial on such a ticket will be the Judges' lowest priority and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was making a cellular telephone call will be problematic, depending on how the law is written.
Will it be merely illegal to touch your phone while driving?
http://www.charliesmyth.org/docs/cellphoneord.draft4.html
Here's Charlie's newest plan. Padded lamposts in Urbana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=807vebt-mmQ
10:47 AM, ThoughtPolice
Interesting thought, especially about the transmission.
But alas, and aleck, that would require many to learn the "H" and our schools are having enough trouble with the "A,B,C's" to have to re-learn just one letter.
But even that time, had its distractions like "Bad Radio Tuners"
In general, nice idea though, and it doesn't require a lot of legislation.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
As long as Urbana's in the banning mood, why not just ban Urbana and be done with it? It's time to think about disincorporation...is there any way this could be done on the county level, could the board just declare Urbana a non-entity or something like that, until Urbana achieves some standard of a basic level of intelligence?
All posts here miss the real point.......................
Urbana should ban automobiles and gas stations.
Require all gas stations to cease business by June 15, 2010, and reconfigure their current properties to community parks with community gardens.
Anyy business that does not comply would be fined $1000 per day.
This would be one of many steps to ban dreaded vehicular travel in Urbana.
It's time to return common sense and forward thinking to our fine City.
Did someone really just blame a bicyclist for biking thoughtfully in a legal area for his own death? How is one supposed to get from one town to another by bicycle without using roads?
Talk about trying to restrict others' freedom... (Yes, I know they weren't preaching legislation, but death is probably worse than a ticket.)
Personally, I talk on the cell phone frequently while driving. I'm borderline narcoleptic, so my problem is never lack of focus on driving due to distraction, but lack of stimulation leading to a risk of falling asleep. I use a hands-free device and have an immaculate driving record (I have had one accident in the last ten years and that was without radio/cell phone and due to a truck tire flying off and hitting my car on the Edens...)
I don't see how anyone conservative could be in favor of these laws. As a non-conservative, I'm willing to figure out alternatives to comply with the spirit of the law, but that's probably going to mean stowing my phone and using speaker option.
I do see a middle ground--enforce actual driving laws much more closely. Unsignaled lane switches and illegal turns, etc. directly demand other drivers to bail you out for your poor choices. Tax the hell out of that. If it happens that you personally make a lot more mistakes that jeopardize other drivers when you talk on the cell phone, then by all means, you should pay for the inconvenience to others.
But I don't see why the individual should be ticketed for behavior that inhibits MOST drivers' behavior when there is no direct evidence that shows that they are becoming a worse driver. Even with DUIs, I view the real problem as the lack of ability to assess one's own driving that sets it apart.
Xian
Bravo, I concur.
or as a I would say instead
I view the real problem as the lack of ability to choose wisely as to whether to drive, or not.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Maybe Urbana can ban Michael Fuerst ??
Didn't a motion for that once fail in the City Council ?
However, you could propse that at a City Council meeting.
Michael Fuerst
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-odd-oreo-defense,1,2977194.story
We should also ban oreo cookies and milk in cars too as this story shows.
Pattsi wrote: It is too bad that Charlie does not feel it is policially feasible to push this further to apply to bicyclists and walkers who are so cognitively involved with whatever phone conversation that they are totally oblivious to what is going on around them and in turn, jeopardize others' safety.
Has Charlie expressed to you this concern? Actually proposing this for cyclists and pedestrians as well probably would make it more likely to pass--or at least that a watered down version just for motorists would pass.
Michael Fuerst
It is too bad that Charlie does not feel it is policially feasible to push this further to apply to bicyclists and walkers who are so cognitively involved with whatever phone conversation that they are totally oblivious to what is going on around them and in turn, jeopardize others' safety.
Wait, aren't bicycles legally considered vehicles? Why wouldn't a cellphone ban apply to them too?
The ordinance could be written to either include or not include bicycles. But the ordinace would have to be written to explicitly include roller bladers.
Michael Fuerst
"I view the real problem as the lack of ability to choose wisely as to whether to drive, or not."
Isn't the reason that society has laws because not everyone chooses wisely? and when they don't choose wisely there is a punishment involved? For 20 years I went to a bar and drank and then drove myself home. I rationalized by saying that I was a better driver after a couple of drinks than most people were sober. In those 20 years I never got stopped or caused an accident. In fact, the only time I was at fault in an accident I was clean sober, (on my way to a bar, so I hadn't drank yet). Does that mean I'm a better driver after I've been drinking? Did I choose wisely? Should we repeal the DUI laws and trust all motorists to make wise decisions and if they don't, then there is no recourse? Cell phones have been around for 20 plus years, but they are a lot more prevalent today than the "brick" phone used by Crockett and Tubbs. It's not like cell phones just came on the market and a law is being passed to ban them. A young man lost his life, his parents lost their son and his sister lost her brother, while he was legally using route 130. Maybe this ordinance wouldn't have saved his live, but what will it take to convince people that, plain and simple, using a cell phone distracts a driver. Will a car need to jump the curb and run over your 3 year old playing in your front yard? Get a grip people. If you are so important that you must take/make a phone call without pulling over and parking your car for 5 minutes, then I suggest you hire a driver, (which, by the way, will help stimulate the economy).
Rex-did you read the proposed ordinance? It states that violations would be a $75 fine, which can be increased up to $200 if the violation occurs during an accident. Additionally, I think the men and women in blue could be instructed to use some "wise judgement" of their own and if, during a stop they determine the motoroist was a visitor from out of town the officer could inform the visitor of the ordinance and send them along their way with a warning.
08:49 AM, Anonymous
Yes I did read the CS blog. The NG article mentioned the $200.
I did not mention anything about repealing the DUI law, makes for an interesting argument, but I don't agree with your suggestion about repealing.
DUI laws were in effect, when you were drinking, did that stop you?
You did not choose wisely, and it was your choice, not the law that either made you drive after drinking or not.
In the accident of question, both made bad choices. Legal or not, I NEVER chose to ride my bike down a busy highway...too dangerous. One mile and an Half to the East or West is a lesser traveled highway, I would have chosen them.
According to others she already had made too many bad choices, and the laws which she chose to violate did not stop her from making another one.
I did not notice the words "wise judgement" in the enforcement of the law. Besides, if the law is going to stop cell phone usage, then total enforcement is the way it is worded.
This will make criminals out of law abiding citizens, and any law that does that is wrong. Think prohibition.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Rex,
Ture, I drove regardless of DUI laws and I stated that this ordinance would not have saved Matt Wilhem's life, but by your logic, if a law can't prevent something then it shouldn't be a law? Should we not have laws against murder, theft and arson, becasue the laws can't prevent the crimes from being commited? Please read the ordinance as it is proposed, (see the post dated 3/21 8:34AM for the link), and read the section on "Reporting". Better yet, I'll copy and paste it for you:
"Section 23-303: Reporting.The Urbana Police Department is to indicate as part of normal accident reporting procedures and investigations, the use of electronic devices found to have been in use by any parties involved in motor vehicle accidents."
The reporting is defined as after the fact. This gives prosecutors more ammunition. The girl who killed Matt Wilhelm got 6 months probation and a $1,000 fine. Are your loved ones worth more than that?
As for your comment on prohibition, you're comparing apples to organges. This ordinance does not ban the manufacture, sale, use or possession of cell phones. It simply restricts you from using said devices while driving a car. Prohibition made it illegal to produce, distribute, consume, or posses alcohol.
No that is not my logic. Not now, not ever. All those laws are Statewide laws not subject to home rule. COME ON........ I said (above);
"this is a Statewide issue, not a local issue because of the exposure of visitors to a penalty that cannot be properly notified to all travelers. I would first research all State laws and determine if other laws addressing distraction are already in existence, if so, modify those laws to also include the types of distractions discussed herein. If not, then I would start with number 2, above and proceed on."
If the state wants to ban the phones, that is cool with me it would be easier and more fair. Then all the State has to do is remind visitors to the State of its existence. Like "buckle up". This is NOT a local issue. If Naomi wants to pass a law that stops her from using her cell phone between Springfield and here....she will.....Good luck.
Seems to me that the same 3/21 8:34AM has a penalty section also, or did I misread the section. EVERY LAW has a reporting section, because the officers do not press charges, only the States Attorney can press charges and the reporting is ALWAYS after the fact, it has to happen before it can be reported.
It is not apples and oranges, it is the principal of passing laws that will make the majority of the population criminals, which is what prohibition did. I could care less about the produce, distribute, consume....I know the prohibition did those things.... It is the concept of passing an unpopular law that will make people a criminal in Urbana and NOT ANYWHERE ELSE. If it is killing people in Urbana it is killing people elsewhere.
And for Smyth to suggest he is using this law to pressure the State into doing something is a perceived exaggeration of his actual importance. If he wants to get something done at the State level, then talk with Naomi. If she doesn't to do it, then he can vote for someone else.
I don't even want to dignify the suggestion of a price on a loved ones life with an answer. I believe in this case it is inappropriate.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield