My editors have substituted their answer for my answer to this reader's letter in today's column. To see what the reader originally e-mailed and my origninal answer, please go to the new item about this at www.honestjohn.co.uk
HJ
|
HJ,
Had just read the motoring section over tea before moving to the PC.
"Your" answer seemed out of sync with other comments that I assume were really your own words. Never thought of editorial interference but it fits.
Shame on them.
David
|
|
|
My editors have substituted their answer for my answer to this reader's letter in today's column. To see what the reader originally e-mailed and my origninal answer, please go to the News item about this at www.honestjohn.co.uk
HJ
|
|
|
Concur with David here. I accept that there must be some degree of editorial control in case of serious lunacy from a contributor. But really, to have this sort of control, when I believe HJ you did say that the payment was more or less = peanuts. Shame on the editorial bigot.
Glad I only paid 35p for my Saturday Tele today then. (special offer coupon)
|
|
I'm disappointed that the one newspaper that always seemed to eschew political correctness has bottled out on this one. Damn poor show.
|
|
|
|
|
I sympathise with the editorial interference. But on the point of driving while using a mobile'phone (or is it the other way round?), it is a bit simple to say that there is "no evidence that this causes accidents". Plain common sense tells you that there must be less concentration on the driving and more on the conversation. In any case, assuming any victims are awake, the 'evidence' will quickly disappear if it adds suspicion.
|
|
|
Reply to Andrew Tarr: Andrew Bairsto was quoting evidence from Germany where they go into these things very thoroughly and found no evidence that using a hands-free phone contributed in any way to accidents. Unfortunately Andy won't be able to add his bit to this thread because he's towed his caravan down to the Med for a couple of weeks.
HJ
|
I notice that you referred to hands-free sets. I can believe that there is not much increase in accidents during a call, but they still have to dial and hang up and that can be some time with your eyes off the road.
Even so, didn't the original note refer to handsets rather than hands-free ?
On the subject of editorial interference. They should have removed the letter altogether. That would have been approriate and within their rights. Changing it and it still purporting to be from you is somewhat iffy.
Did you bother discussing it with them ? Did they care ?
|
|
|
|
Reply to Mark: What do you mean "did I bother discussing it with them"? I e-mail my copy to the paper 3 - 6 weeks in advance of publication and that's the last I see of it until I go out and buy the paper and find out what my editors and the subs have done to it. If my editors wanted to change something I suppose they could have "bothered" to phone me to discuss it, but on this occasion nobody did. I should also point out I stopped smoking about 15 years ago. My editors are all smokers. (This is relevant if you look at the reply I originally submitted.) To receive a call on the move you only have to press one button. To make a call to to a number in the memory you only have to press a couple of buttons. I don't make calls from the car unless I'm stuck in a traffic jam. But I do take them because that's the point of having a mobile phone.
HJ
|
>What do you mean "did I bother discussing it with them"?
I meant, in the face of such behaviour and attitude [from them], I could envisage a scenario where you thought "I'll call them about this" and then thought "what's the point, they won't listen, I can't be bothered to waste my time".
My next question would have been to ask if they were interested in your opinion and had one of their own to offer.
|
|
|
and, by the way, I smoke, a lot, even when I'm driving.
Smoking has no effect on my driving - turning around to look out the window with a cigarette in my mouth, finding it closed which knocks the cigarette out of my mouth on to the seat in between my legs and then rolling backwards into danger areas - that affects my driving.
|
|
|
|
On hands free systems installed in the car properly, you can get them set up now so that on an incoming call, the system mutes the radio, answers the call automatically, varies the volume out of the speakers as the car speed changes, hangs up at the end of the call and fires up the radio again. Now that is truly hands free. For outgoing calls its true that you have to dial, but I have not tried one of these voice activated gizmos so maybe that is a solution.
As to the call interfering with driving, its like so many things in life maintaining the balance that suits you. What do you do if your passenger insists on a conversation which is distracting, well I try to ignore them, but then I am just anti social old sod. What about smoking, eating sweets, putting a cassette/CD in the machine? Are we going to ban them plus gagging talkative passengers. Actually the last might be good idea in certain cases. (NO NO not you Mrs B, ouch!)
What I did not like about the original article was that the guy who had written the road rage column banged on for 99% specifically about hand held mobiles in cars, with which I agreed what he said. Then threw in a one liner at the end which said more or less. "and by the way hands free are just as bad."
In the same weeks edition Germaine Greer had a much more informed column about mobiles in cars, and pointed out other things that were just as distracting, *if you allow them to distract you.* Obviously the Motoring section editors don't talk to the Weekend section editors, well done Germaine!
|
Stuart
I agree with comments about hands-free mobiles. Mine is such a set-up without the automatic volume.
I hate to be thought an anorak but if you subscribe to Orange Wildfire, your phone (any make or model) gets access to voice activation so you press one button to access the system and you can then deal with messages and make calls and you don't need to touch the phone again even to hang up. It's just like finding the switches for rear screen heater or the front fogs (grin) without taking eyes from the road.
I use this system regularly. I may be wrong but I don't see the difference between talking to passengers and talking on the hands-free.
No I don't work for Orange.
|
|
|
|
John
Are you seriously suggesting that the Editor of the Daily Toryograph dared to print a response under an assumed name (yours)? Never, shurly shome mishtake? And I've always believed everything the Toryograph printed was gospel (ooops, how did religion slip in here?). The editorial comment within the aforementioned august organ has never been rabid or manic in any way whatsover (?). Personally, I find the Sport much more to my taste, no news or opinions whatsover, just good wholesome flesh,
Hur,hur
M
|
|
|
The argument is that your passenger is in the car, and can see and react to your body language, and can see and react to the traffic conditions.
A caller, however, on "losing" the conversation will start shouting down the phone - distracting the driver from whatever has attracted his attention.
Having said that - some drivers get up to far worse and get away with it.
As usual: it's a question of degree, and authorities' priorities (or lack of).
|
|
|
