Take-off, Landing, and Your Ereader -- A Poll

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In all honesty, don't you think it's rather easier simply to say "don't use your electronic devices during take-off and landing"? Honestly, how great a hardship is it to be without your reader for a few minutes?

United Airlines is using iPads in the cockpit. So when the stewardess asks you to turn off your iPad, ask her if the flight crew have turned off theirs.

[JSWolf]

What I do is turn off/put in sleep mode my reader when asked.

The iPad gets put in airplane mode as well as the cell phones. It's not only to follow the rules, but it saves the battery when the devices are not trying to look for a signal they won't be getting.

[5thWiggle]

I just turn it off, and put it away. No sense making things harder for the flight attendants who have to enforce the rules, and put up with other crap. Don't want to have an incident like this happen.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by ApK

Skymall has some pretty cool stuff, and the prices are not all that bad.


Part of it is a matter of attitude and approach. When my young son points out I'm speeding, I tell him he's right, going the speed limit would be safer, and it would save gas, and I wouldn't want to get a ticket in any case. And I'll most likely slow down. I might offer some justification about the safety of going with the speed of traffic, but I'll slow down (at least until his attention is elsewhere).

It would not occur to me to trumpet how proud and noble a free thinker I am for bravely disregarding the speed laws and how he should learn from my example.

I don't mean that it's OK to do it as long as you act like you're sorry about it, I just mean that the attitude is it's own issue, and may be a more important element the rule involved.

I don't believe I am trumpetting anything. A poll question was posted, I answered honestly, I posted what I do, and many folks decided to go off and equate reading an e-reader with killing someone after running a red light or being cool with burglary.

I would say most of the hyperbole is on the "Oh my god you are breaking a rule" crowd. I have no problem with Harry's comment, or anyone elses comment, that the behavior is selfish. It is selfish. I enjoy reading. I hate being on a plane. Skymall is entertaining for about 10 minutes. I get bored and nervous waiting for the plane to take off and land. I want to read and I happen to read on an e-reader. E-readers have not caused any plane to crash so I wonder why I cannot read on my e-reader. I say screw it and read on my e-reader so I am entertained for more then the 10 minutes it takes to taxi, wait for take off, take off, and reach a safe altitude when they will let me use my e-reader.

I have a problem who get on their high horse about breaking the law and risking everyones life by using an e-reader during take off and landing. There is no empirical evidence that they are actually dangerous. The FAA is looking to reverse its ruling on most of this because it is not dangerous, they just were hoping the airlines would pay the money to run the expensive tests to prove that they are not dangerous.

For the record, I speed but I do not run red lights, even at 3 AM in the morning when there is no traffic in sight. Sometimes I pick up other peoples litter because it bugs me. I have never intentionally or unintentionally killed anyone. And yes, I read during take off and landing on my Kindle.


And no, I don't think that breaking most rules is a sign of civil disobiedience or free thinking. Reading your Kindle on the plane is not the same as refusing to give up a seat on the bus or sitting at the counter of a segregated restaurant. Alec Baldwin was an ass. When The Flight Attendent told him directly to turn off his phone or tablet or whatever, he should have. I am sure he gave the Flight Attendent a ton of attitude as well as refusing to turn the device off. He should have been booted.

I just wish people would be allowed to answer questions like this honestly and avoid the hyperbole from people who think we should simply follow the rule. Or at least keep the comparisons in check.

[Bilbo1967]

So the question still remains; what do you believe gives you the right to pick and choose which laws you obey?

The admittedly over the top correlations (btw, it was somebody supporting the individual pick and mix approach to adherence to laws who brought up red lights - as one of the laws that he/she didn't need to obey) are just a vehicle to explore the principle.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I don't believe I am trumpetting anything. [...]

I would say most of the hyperbole is on the "Oh my god you are breaking a rule" crowd.

I didn't mean to imply I thought you were. I was just commenting on why the reaction to the 'minor rule' breaking might seem out of proportion. I think some of us are reacting to the attitude toward the rule breaking, not to the breaking of the rule itself.

I think we're in agreement.

[ProfCrash]

I believe I answered that. I don't have the right to pick and choose. If I am caught breaking the law, I am punished. I have to decide if I am willing to accept the conequences of my actions. If my actions harm another, the punishment will be more severe.

If I thought for a second that reading my Kindle during take off or landing would cause the plane to crash, I would not read my Kindle. First, I care about my own life and would not be so stupid as to do something that I thought would kill me. Second, I care about the life of my family members who are on the plane with me. Third, I care about the lives of everyone else on the plane who I don't know.

If I think that my speeding is dangerous, I slow down or don't speed. I have even been known to drive under the speed limit due to road conditions. I am not interested in hurting anyone, just getting to where I want to go as safely and quickly as possible.

I seriously doubt that you or anyone else on this board follow every rule that they are suppose to to a T. We all bend the rules at some point in time. Most of us do so without any consequences because we are aware enough to not want to harm ourselves or the people around us. There is a small minority who are willing to do things that they know will harm others and we all hope that they are caught and punished before they do so. It does not always work that way and that sucks. We hope that they are caught and punished for their actions so that they pay a price, even if that price can never equal to damage that they cause, and to let others know that there is a price to pay to deter similar behavior in others.

The holier then thou attitude is annoying because no one here is perfect and because the silly examples do nothing to make a serious point. If e-readers, Ipods, game boys, headsets, and the like being used during landing and take off were going to crash a plane it would have happened by now and we would all know about it. If it was really dangerous, the FAA would not be looking at removing those rules. If it was really dangerous, IPads would not be used in the cockpit by pilots.

The FAA has been hoping that airlines would foot the bill for the necessary tests to demonstrate that these devices are safe. The Airlines did not want to pay for the expensive testing and just keep using FAA guidelines. Clearly the complaining about the rules have become loud enough that the FAA is going to do the testing. More likely then not, the rules are going to go away.

That is more then enough for me to decide that I can safely read my Kindle without jeopardizing my life, my families life, or your life on the plane. If you are sitting next to me and are not comfortable with that, feel free to tell me that the rules say I need to turn off my Kindle and I will sigh and put it away. If you say it politely enough I might even buy you a drink for not being a dick about it.

[Bilbo1967]

I actually find it scary that the only reason you would obey a law that is there to prevent people other than yourself being harmed is because you might get a harsher sentence. It's a level of selfishness I don't encounter very often. But full marks for honesty.

Personally, I don't see laws as optional, even when I've carried out 5 minutes research on the internet to support my opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[HappyMartin]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I actually find it scary that the only reason you would obey a law that is there to prevent people other than yourself being harmed is because you might get a harsher sentence. It's a level of selfishness I don't encounter very often. But full marks for honesty.

Personally, I don't see laws as optional, even when I've carried out 5 minutes research on the internet to support my opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

What when the law tells you to put on a uniform and go kill people in another country? Or that black people should be in separate schools or not in school at all? What about laws that send Jews to prison or forbid them in certain businesses? How about laws that don't allow women to controll there own bodies?

Personally I find a blind obedience to laws terrifying.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

If e-readers, Ipods, game boys, headsets, and the like being used during landing and take off were going to crash a plane it would have happened by now and we would all know about it. If it was really dangerous, the FAA would not be looking at removing those rules. If it was really dangerous, IPads would not be used in the cockpit by pilots.

This is seriously flawed logic.

[ProfCrash]

I obey most laws because they make sense and are morally right. I would never consider murder, theft, assaulting someone, raping someone ect...

The few laws I break (speeding and jaywalking are the two that come to mind), are commonly broken by most folks. I am sorry if it scares you that I speed and jaywalk. Oh, and I remove DRM, that might be illegal.

There are laws that are no longer on the books that I would hope I would be strong enough to stand up and protest against and activly break if I could. I would hope that I had the moral courage to stand up with the folks during the Civil Rights era or even before that. Not all laws are moral and just and deserve to be followed. I do not assume that because I live in a democracy that the people elected to serve always do the right thing and pass legislation that is fair or just or morally right.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

What when the law tells you to put on a uniform and go kill people in another country? Or that black people should be in separate schools or not in school at all? What about laws that send Jews to prison or forbid them in certain businesses? How about laws that don't allow women to controll there own bodies?

Personally I find a blind obedience to laws terrifying.

Wel, thank God you didn't fall into trap I did of using over inflated examples to make a point (jeez, I only mentioned running red lights and got called on it)

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I obey most laws because they make sense and are morally right.

In your opinion only. What gives you the right to make that decision? A law you consider to be 'morally right' may not be considered so by others. Are they therefore at liberty to ignore that law?

In a democracy, where you vote for the lawmakers, what gives you the right to then pick and choose the laws you obey?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

In a democracy, where you vote for the lawmakers, what gives you the right to then pick and choose the laws you obey?

The tenet of civil disobedience, but I can't see that applying when all that's at stake is a few minutes of reading at take off and landing.

ApK

[ProfCrash]

Because law makers are flawed. They are human and sometimes pass legislation that is wrong. Plain and simple. There are more then enough examples of this in the United States, the Constitution allows for slavery and refers to Slaves as less of a person. Nevermind treating women as inferior by denying them the vote. What about that is moral or right?

I think we might be able to find a few examples of bad legislation in UK history. Heck, lets take a good long look at Germany pre-WWII.

The fact that in your mind you somehow equate "I read my Kindle on a plane during take off" with "You must be ok with people who burgal your home" or "Its ok to run a red light and kill someone" is silly. Not all laws and rules are not black and white. People who choose to break some rules are not awful people. There are rules that are broken that cause no harm. There are rules that should be broken. To assume that anyone should blindly follow the rules that are laid out because they live in a democracy is to cede far too much power to the hands of the legislator. When you do that you end up with some pretty awful circumstances and far more people hurt.