Those annoying cell phones in public places

[Ozymandous]

That second device looks like what Pete needs to listen to those conversations that are too far away to hear, since he said something about a burning need to know what other people are talking about... :laugh: :wub:

[LKendter]

If your child, relative, etc is so sick that you must be available 100% of the time then I guess you'd need to stick close to home, or where ever the sick person is, after all how did people used to stay in touch before cell phones??? Cell phones are wonderful devices, but with most things, you have to have a little common courtesy when you use them, the problem is that courtesy isn't that 'common', sort of like 'sense' isn't that common.


So your solution to insure contact in case my kid has problems is to not have a life? This situation almost caused a divorce from the stress, caused the wife and I to lose contact with a lot of people, not to mention the financial headaches.

Sorry, but I think your answer is one of the most ignorant answers I have seen. All I can say is if you had lived though years of this headache, then I guarantee your opinion would change

[ShadowHM]

Hi Pete

I would like to quibble on one aspect of your argument. I see a difference between retaliatory action and preventative action. The first leads to escalation; the second just prevents the problem from occurring in the first place.

However, it is incontestable that the latter removes the cell phone user's right to be an asshole if they want to be. It does indeed infringe on their freedom. The only way in which I believe that to be wrong is that they would not be informed of that loss.

The best potential for this gadget would be to have it installed in places where people pay for 'the show' - concert halls and theatres jump into my mind as obvious starting points. A library is another such place. A sign in the lobby before entering advising that cell phones will not work inside would suffice. Then the potential offender can make an informed consent - walk in and don't use the device or don't go in.

You suggested that "If someone's use of a cell phone is disturbing you in a place where you have a legitimate right to complain, then complain directly to them."

I find that to be offensive too. If I paid for 'the show' and it is already interrupted for me, I can redress the problem only by creating even more of a fuss? I can and have suggested to people that the phone call should be undertaken in the lobby. Some people, indeed, do that automatically, and do leave the instant they accept a call. But the point is that my enjoyment of 'the show' is damaged the instant that (deliberately designed to be attention-getting) sound goes off near me.


I am intrigued by this idea of yours.

About time to admit it. Most of the anti-cell phone feeling has little to do with inconvenience and everything to do with frustrated curiosity. When two people are conversing, it's easy to eavesdrop. When someone's on the cell phone, the half a conversation one hears is irritating because the mind wants to know more. It is exactly the same as the irritation felt when overhearing someone speaking in a language that one doesn't understand. It isn't that people are speaking that rubs us wrong, it's that we don't know what it is they are speaking of.

An anecdote from my life makes me suspect that there may be some merit to that. I live in a wildly multi-cultural city. Chances are very good that all the conversations around me during a subway ride are going to be completely incomprehensible to me, as I speak only English and some French. I have, in fact, heard people complain about 'all that gibberish going on' around them. Perhaps if they could understand it they would not have been so annoyed?

However, I would also like to stress that for me and most of those I know, the fact that I cannot comprehend even the two-sided conversations I hear in public places makes me even less concerned about the one-sided ones I overhear. Heck, much of the time they are in another language too.

I do thank you, Pete, for poking me out of my self-absorption once again. It would seem that my lack of concern about the use of cell phones in places where there is no reasonable expectation of peace and quiet is not shared by all. My view was that anywhere a conversation could normally take place without disrupting others was a perfectly reasonable place to have a cell phone conversation.

(The topic of cell phones and vehicles has already been over-done here.)

But I would like to carry on with more speculation about why cell phones irritate people. In my lifetime, the ‘noise’ factor has increased a lot. Our lives are now surrounded by ‘new’ sound cues that are human-made, as opposed to those generated in the natural world. Our machinery whistles, beeps, chimes and makes any number of noises at us. These sounds are intended to convey information to us – like the danger sound of a large truck backing up.

The background sounds of a city involve a lot of impersonal sources of sound – the machinery operated two streets over by the road repair crew, the traffic on the nearby arterial road, the factory at the end of the road, the airplanes of the nearby airport, etc. They do not have any specific face we can give them, on which to vent any irritation they may be causing. We can tell ourselves that, irritating as they may be, we ‘need’ those sounds to make our good life happen.

But a cell phone user in your vicinity is not ‘the system’; they are individuals upon whom we can focus clearly. It is much easier to vent towards them. And I think that is why we do so easily, compared to how we respond to the other sonic affronts we face daily.


One of my pet peeves on the ‘new noises’ front is remote car lock/unlock systems that cause the car horn to beep. I hate walking through a mall parking lot and having an empty car beep at me, because the owner either just locked it or unlocked it from 40 feet away. I jump every time, because that sound is a cue for danger to me. And I don’t like having unnecessary adrenaline rushes in my day.

[LKendter]

Originally posted by ShadowHM@Apr 16 2004, 08:50 AM
The best potential for this gadget would be to have it installed in places where people pay for 'the show' - concert halls and theatres jump into my mind as obvious starting points. A library is another such place. A sign in the lobby before entering advising that cell phones will not work inside would suffice. Then the potential offender can make an informed consent - walk in and don't use the device or don't go in.

Now that is something I could accept. I can plan ahead of time, and decide if I am willing to go in.

I really hated the idea of being anywhere, and someone could kill a critical call with no warning. This answer avoids that problem. This is an acceptable compromise.

Trying to simply avoid anything rude is almost impossible. I find loud music; particularly rap music, very rude and annoying. To eliminate this do be invent a radio / cd player zapper? What about rude drivers? Do we create a device that disables their car?

The fundamental problem is not with the technology. It is with the losers who don't use it properly.

[Ozymandous]

So your solution to insure contact in case my kid has problems is to not have a life? This situation almost caused a divorce from the stress, caused the wife and I to lose contact with a lot of people, not to mention the financial headaches.

One of the things you have to decide when you're planning to have a child is what sacrifices you plan to make for that child. You're an adult, you should be mature enough to accept that you may not "have a life" like you want once the child is born due to unforseen complications, illneses, etc.

I'm sorry that you feel that you can have no life if you can't stay in constant contact, but I am saying that you are placing you own wants and wishes above those you might inconvenience with your inappropriate cell phone usage. How did people used to deal with extremely sick family members before cell phones? That's my question to you.

Sorry, but I think your answer is one of the most ignorant answers I have seen. All I can say is if you had lived though years of this headache, then I guarantee your opinion would change

Maybe, maybe not, but then again I realize that when my wife and I plan to have kids I will not have the "free and easy" lifestyle I have now where I can go where I want and do what I want almost anything I please. That's part of being a parent and being an adult. If someone isn't ready to make that commitment then maybe they shouldn't be a parent. I know my father always had more time to "have a life" than he spent with me growing up, so maybe I am more in touch with the responsibilities being a real parent entails, I dunno.

[Ozymandous]

I find loud music; particularly rap music, very rude and annoying. To eliminate this do be invent a radio / cd player zapper? What about rude drivers? Do we create a device that disables their car?

Hmm, radio/CD zapper? Would work great for those folks who insist I listen to their music even though their car is 20 feet away. A device to disable the car's of rude drivers? Only if it would force them to pull off the road first. I long ago wished that all cars that drove more than a mile or two with their turn signal flashing should at some point in time have their car immdeiately swear in the direction of the flasher but that would cause other accidents, even if it would be very, *very* satisfying to see some 'snow bird' caught by surprise when their car did that. :D

Hmm, I wonder if a 'cow catcher' would work with modern cars and annoying drivers?? :laugh:

[LKendter]

Originally posted by Ozymandous@Apr 16 2004, 09:26 AM
I'm sorry that you feel that you can have no life if you can't stay in constant contact, but I am saying that you are placing you own wants and wishes above those you might inconvenience with your inappropriate cell phone usage.  How did people used to deal with extremely sick family members before cell phones?  That's my question to you.

It use to be at least one person stayed home or very close by at all times. Cell phones helped to eliminate that trap of many people. It allowed my wife to still work and be available for the nurses that take care of my son part of the day to reach her if needed. It allowed very hard to contact doctors to reach us. If a call that was usually under 5 minutes offends you, then I don't have an answer.


I did managed to get a very well behaved kid who rarely bothers people at other tables at restaurants. I can't stand parents to who allow their kids to roam around and bother other tables. Does this mean I need a kip-zapper?

The problem isn't the technology; it is the people. What is needed is an answer to why people became so rude, and to work at the point.

[Doc]

I LOATHE cellphones. I refuse to own one, although I have been asked many times.

Just can't stand them. And yes, I say jam the damn things till there are laws in place to protect the peace and quiet.

Now, as for the medical aspect, HAVING to own a cellphone is horsey crap. Sorry.

I am diabetic... On the verge of full blown diabetes now. My blood sugar is constantly low. Due to other illnesses, I can no longer control my own body temp. Due to several medical conditions, I need to have some way to contact somebody on the odd event I leave the house.

I use Lifeline. I don't need a phone, don't need to call and talk, which is hard to do if I were passed out cold. Which is why cellphones are STUPID in that situation. Can't use them if you are not awake. Lifeline is a little box that can hang around the neck or clip into the belt. It has a panic button. It automatically dispatches an ambulance and starts calling folks on my emergency list and gives my location via GPS. Amazingly, my city is on the grid so the folks on my list would get a physical address location. Also, there is a little wristwatch thingamajig that keeps track of my pulse, heartbeat, and even my blood pressure somehow. It's a neat gadget. Should any of my vital signs tumble, or, should the little gyroscope thingamabob in there detect that I have fallen over, it will automatically call emergency services for me. Pretty neat that it can detect a sudden fall... But I like gizmos and am easily impressed.

And guess what... It costs 10 bucks a month in my area, and is available in most cities. Cheaper then a cellphone. Less intrusive then a cellphone. It's not RUDE like a cellphone.

Back on the jammer subject, I think the jammers would save a lot of public injury. Down here, in these parts, here is a typical event.

Damnyankee, who's Mamma didn't raise him right, gets on the phone and starts flapping his damn gums in that high pitched nasal whine that pierces the ears of all in the area. He is loud, rude, and his voice goes up and down as his connection wavers. Some big flannel shirt wearing redneck, who is also down at the local greasy spoon, eating lunch and wanting a moment of peace and quiet, SNAPS. Damnyankee is dragged outside into the parking lot, beaten, and his phone smashed so he can't call the police. Think I am joking? Read the police reports. Happens almost every day and most of the folks are tourists. Local Southerners who cause annoyance on phones get no mercy either, as they should know better in the first place. One of the few places I go an eat, Crazy Amilio's, has a sign that says cellphones will not be tolerated. If you are in there eating, and your phone rings because you forgot to turn it off, start running! You have about 4 seconds before two land bound behemoths known as Vincent and Guido (God the stereotypes I an invoking here, but, I swear it's true) will come and physically toss your ass out on the curb. This is why I go there... Mostly it's peaceful and quiet and safe... but occasionally I get dinner and a show... and I am a sucker for a bargain freebee.

Cellphones are horrid pieces of shit. They cause people to loose what few manners are left in the world. Folks who use cellphones out at dinner talk with their mouth open. They disrupt everything. They bring anger to the table, both out of annoyance and occasionally out of heated conversation on the phone it self. It's hard to get a please or thank you or simple courtesy out of someone on the phone. They are a menace on the roads. They disrupt business, as some dumb dolt will start chatting on the phone while in the checkout line or something, slowing everything down. They get so wrapped up in conversation walking around that they bump into other people and generally don't pay attention to where they are going. Mothers on cell phones can't pay attention to their brats, who are now free of Mommy's grasp and are out terrorizing the public. And Mommy's to tied up on the phone to notice or even care. Several kids have been snatched from local business and guess what, Mommy was on the phone at the time and didn't notice their brats missing.

I could go on, but wont.

[Pete]

Hi,

I see a difference between retaliatory action and preventative action. The first leads to escalation; the second just prevents the problem from occurring in the first place.

I do too. However, both the jammer and the taser are *retaliatory*. While it is possible to go around with a jammer on all the time, it is highly unlikely. Consider that the power required to put out sufficient signal to jam surrounding phones is quite a bit higher than the power required to receive a call. Transmission always takes more power than reception. Which is why a cell phone can last days without being recharged if it is only waiting for a call, but will run down in just a few hours of actual use.

So, it is impractical to carry "an umbrella of silence" with you, You need to pick and choose. And it probably will not last through a theater production, or even a long film. Thus, the most likely use is to turn it on *after* a nearby cell call is in progress. Which, if the call did not originate with the person near you (unlikely if they are watching a movie or at a show) means after the annoying ring (again, assuming they didn't "mute" their phone). Now, if these devices become popular, how about this for a scenario: kid gets call that disturbs you. You crank up your jammer. Kid notices that you've just killed his call, pulls out gun and blows your brain out. Oh, did I forget to mention, kid is as high as a kite from whatever drug of choice is making the rounds -- which is why simply *telling* the kid is a risk.

As for the annoying driver who is erratic because he is on the cell phone -- well, you turn on the jammer. His phone connection is cut off. He takes away the 1% attention he had on his driving to check the phone's signal strength meter. During his (long) moment of inattention his SUV runs over your micro hybrid, decapitating everyone on board -- he gets a minor scratch.

Retaliation, escalation -- yep. The jammer is, at best, vigilantism.

Which is why I advocate legal and technological solutions. Now, I don't expect the police to do anything about cell phone users -- they're too busy busting people for a few grams of marijuana, or doing ten over the limit on an otherwise empty and straight highway. But if Big Brother has the right and the power to legislate smoking in public, why not cell phones. And, by putting the onus on the establishment's owners, they make a technological solution attractive.

The best potential for this gadget would be to have it installed in places where people pay for 'the show' - concert halls and theatres jump into my mind as obvious starting points. A library is another such place. A sign in the lobby before entering advising that cell phones will not work inside would suffice. Then the potential offender can make an informed consent - walk in and don't use the device or don't go in.

Yes. And that takes it out of the private hands. Which is what my complaint about the jammer was in the first place. And, does the shoe fit the other foot? Since, at present, you know that you can be disturbed at any time by someone's cell phone at these places, since there is neither regulation nor requirement that they do not use these phones (although more places *are* requesting that patrons turn their cell phones and pagers off), do you not have a choice of avoiding such places?

It would seem that my lack of concern about the use of cell phones in places where there is no reasonable expectation of peace and quiet is not shared by all. My view was that anywhere a conversation could normally take place without disrupting others was a perfectly reasonable place to have a cell phone conversation.

And I agree completely. But we are in the minority from the comments I've heard. And from the comments of others in this tread. Which is what led me to speculate upon the reason why cell phone usage is so objectionable to so many. If the couple behind you on the bus are arguing loudly in English, is that better than the guy next to you carrying on a quiet cell phone conversation? Is the person walking down the street with the headset on and the glazed distance look less of an impediment to smooth pedestrian traffic than the alert person using the cell phone? Why do we hear so many people gripe about cell phone usage where they wouldn't gripe about a conversation, or even about someone talking to themselves? And, like you, I've noticed a lot of griping about people speaking other languages. I'm probably more sensitive than most, since "bloody foreigners" was about the first English phrase I learned (aimed at my Italian speaking family in London when I was little more than a toddler). The comments aren't alone, look at the faces of those around you when this happens. In Seattle (a city probably close to Toronto in cosmopolitanism) this is an effect that can be observed often. And Seattle is a very tolerant city.

Our lives are now surrounded by ‘new’ sound cues that are human-made, as opposed to those generated in the natural world.

All too true. And a lot of that is caused by the infernal combustion reciprocating engine

But a cell phone user in your vicinity is not ‘the system’; they are individuals upon whom we can focus clearly. It is much easier to vent towards them. And I think that is why we do so easily, compared to how we respond to the other sonic affronts we face daily.

But the human voice is not one of the ‘new’ sound cues. Now, if the only objection one has to cell phone usage in public is the ringing of the phone, then you have right on your side. But it is the totality of cell phone use that seems to irritate most of the non-users. And the majority of that use broadcasts nothing more than the human voice to those in earshot. So, while I agree with your premise that the world has gotten a lot noisier with a lot more noises that humans find irritating (and all that has been well borne out through many studies and even explained in the sense of what physiological responses "unnatural" sounds bring about), I cannot see how that premise applies to your conclusion except in a very limited way. After all, if your conclusion were true, we would also feel this antagonism to *anyone* who was carrying on a conversation, and we generally don't.

One of my pet peeves on the ‘new noises’ front is remote car lock/unlock systems that cause the car horn to beep.

Yep. Sue's car has such, and every time she uses it when I'm with her, I snap at her. Hopefully that idiocy is going away with the "keyless" systems that react to the transceiver in the owners pocket or purse. AFAIK, those make no noise (or at least I hope so).

--Pete

[Pete]

Hi,

is needed is an answer to why people became so rude, . . .

Ignorance. Just look at some of the answers in this thread.

. . . and to work at the point.

Again, you've already given the hint:

I can't stand parents to who allow their kids to roam around and bother other tables.

Yep. We're well into the third Spock generation of people who were raised without damaging their frail egos. Or, looking at it from another standpoint, without having the least bit of discipline imposed on them. Babies are, by necessity, self centered, One of a parent's responsibilities is to change that. Many have failed to even try. And that is why rudeness prevails -- on the road, in restaurants, and theaters, and especially on the Internet.

Or so I think.

--Pete