Callsign
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10
Results 91 to 98 of 98

Thread: SB61 in CT Needs your support.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-tentec
ad: l-WarrenG
ad: l-innov
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-Waters
ad: l-rl
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K7JEM View Post
    Would you then agree that drinking a coke or coffee, eating a french fry, adjusting the mirror or FM receiver, yelling at kids in the back seat, talking to passengers, adjusting a GPS, or smoking a cigarette should be equally banned? Are any of these things really necessary? I mean if we want to ban ALL things that are potential distractions, there are lots of things that can happen, and have happened, in a car.
    Not that there is any point of continuing but I will end with one comment on your post - that when someone resorts to the absurd in an attempt to make their point, it is evidence they have no valid argument.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Safford,  AZ
    Posts
    11,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K1VSK View Post
    Not that there is any point of continuing but I will end with one comment on your post - that when someone resorts to the absurd in an attempt to make their point, it is evidence they have no valid argument.
    I really don't need an argument. Anyone can read the law and see that HR is NOT included in the current wording, so why would anyone be opposed to adding an exemption to clarify that?

    It really doesn't matter if this amendment passes or not. The current law is clear. It doesn't include HR operation, or CB, or commercial two way, because of the way they have written the definition of "mobile electronic device". The amendment would just make that more clear for these already exempted services. If CT wants to ban mobile HR operations, it will take an amendment to include such devices in their definition. So, if you guys want to petition the CT lawmakers to do that, then go ahead. Pretty sure it won't happen, though.

    Joe
    We cannot tax our way to prosperity.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    north central Connecticut
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K7JEM View Post
    Would you then agree that drinking a coke or coffee, eating a french fry, adjusting the mirror or FM receiver, yelling at kids in the back seat, talking to passengers, adjusting a GPS, or smoking a cigarette should be equally banned? Are any of these things really necessary? I mean if we want to ban ALL things that are potential distractions, there are lots of things that can happen, and have happened, in a car.

    Joe
    Spot on, Joe... if we are going to have laws to protect us from ourselves, than everything on your list, however facetious, is equally valid
    as being possible driving distractions.

  4. #94

    Default

    I wonder if 'they' will disallow pilots from using the radio while flying or more particularly when they enter the pattern or are on final. Personally I never found it a problem even at 150 knots. I'd agree that planes are farther apart than automobiles there is much more happening and the closure rates between the ground and/or other aircraft are much faster. Maybe it is a matter of training.

  5. #95

    Default

    Mobile electronic device" means any hand-held or other portable electronic equipment capable of providing data communication between two or more persons, including a text messaging device, a paging device, a personal digital assistant, a laptop computer, equipment that is capable of playing a video game or a digital video disk, or equipment on which digital photographs are taken or transmitted, or any combination thereof, but does not include any audio equipment or any equipment installed in a motor vehicle for the purpose of providing navigation, emergency assistance to the operator of such motor vehicle or video entertainment to the passengers in the rear seats of such motor vehicle.

    (b) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsections (c) and (d) of this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in section 14-1, while using a hand-held mobile telephone to engage in a call or while using a mobile electronic device while such vehicle is in motion. An operator of a motor vehicle who types, sends or reads a text message with a hand-held mobile telephone or mobile electronic device while such vehicle is in motion shall be in violation of this section. (2) An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a hand-held mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a call. (3) The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a hand-held mobile telephone or a mobile electronic device, unless otherwise provided by law. (4) Subdivision (1) of this subsection does not apply to: (A) The use of a hand-held mobile telephone for the sole purpose of communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation: An emergency response operator; a hospital, physician's office or health clinic; an ambulance company; a fire department; or a police department, or (B) any of the following persons while in the performance of their official duties and within the scope of their employment: A peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, a firefighter or an operator of an ambulance or authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in section 14-1, or a member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, while operating a military vehicle, or (C) the use of a hands-free mobile telephone.

    Joe,

    You'd think this didn't refer to HR - except hams have been ticketed under 14-296aa which is above - the previous incarnation was more specific and excluded radios - this one is more ambiguous. If the hams went to court in the cases I know of, they got off - but it cost them a day off work and it costs the state and town to "enforce" this. In CT we have always had wording exempting radio operators - but when the law was re-written recently that exemption wasn't included - we just lobbied to put it back where its been since 1968 and spare us the having to deal with being pulled over etc. A lot of public service we do in CT is done mobile - SKYWARN - Road races - CERT - ARES etc etc.

    So thats why.




    Quote Originally Posted by K7JEM View Post
    I really don't need an argument. Anyone can read the law and see that HR is NOT included in the current wording, so why would anyone be opposed to adding an exemption to clarify that?

    It really doesn't matter if this amendment passes or not. The current law is clear. It doesn't include HR operation, or CB, or commercial two way, because of the way they have written the definition of "mobile electronic device". The amendment would just make that more clear for these already exempted services. If CT wants to ban mobile HR operations, it will take an amendment to include such devices in their definition. So, if you guys want to petition the CT lawmakers to do that, then go ahead. Pretty sure it won't happen, though.

    Joe

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Safford,  AZ
    Posts
    11,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KA1RLA View Post

    Joe,

    You'd think this didn't refer to HR - except hams have been ticketed under 14-296aa which is above - the previous incarnation was more specific and excluded radios - this one is more ambiguous. If the hams went to court in the cases I know of, they got off - but it cost them a day off work and it costs the state and town to "enforce" this. In CT we have always had wording exempting radio operators - but when the law was re-written recently that exemption wasn't included - we just lobbied to put it back where its been since 1968 and spare us the having to deal with being pulled over etc. A lot of public service we do in CT is done mobile - SKYWARN - Road races - CERT - ARES etc etc.

    So thats why.
    I understand all that. It is really the cops fault if they ticket someone using a radio, but this is not unusual. Even with a specific exemption for HR ops, they could still get a ticket, if the cop doesn't understand what a HR is.

    My advice to CT ops is to print the current law, as you have posted it. If stopped, you could show it to the cop, and explain how your setup does not constitute either a "mobile electronic device" or a "hand held mobile phone" as defined by CT law. The amendment will make it better, but probably still need to have a copy of the law available.

    I'm just glad I live in AZ.

    Joe
    We cannot tax our way to prosperity.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    1,368

    Default

    Laws pertaining to distracted driving will be hard to enforce. But some aspects of these laws that I have read about I agree with.

    I've been in a serious accident caused by a kid texting on his phone and that experience has changed my way of thinking, forever. When I'm on the road, I am keenly aware of what others are doing, not that I wasn't before, but I am much more cautious, a very distrustful of others I share the road with.
    I couldn't care less if it's a phone, a CB, a GPS, Stereo, or an Amateur Rig. What I want, and expect is for people to use these devices responsibly. When I'm in heavy traffic and I see someone in front of me weaving from one lane to another, they are on the phone most of the time, and I lay on the horn, and they usually "wake up" really fast. Also, unless you have an urgent need, don't use an electronic device. In Amateur Radio, It is important that Amateurs are allowed to use their radios in an emergency, for sky warn, for disasters. I live in the Fargo area, we have had problems with flooding, and our local hams have been there just in case.
    I do not, however, support casual use "rag chew" while you are operating a motor vehicle.

    Some people have this attitude that they are somehow immune from getting in an accident. After all, they are good drivers and only the careless get in an accident. This kind of thinking is often present with some who have a grandiose sense of entitlement, and just cannot grasp the fact that they need to share the highways, and roads with others. The U.S. Dot is looking at a trend, a trend that involves a growing number of preventable deaths and injuries caused by careless use of electronic devices. Yes, we all know that cell phone use is on top of the list, but it is not the only cause. Someone might say.."show me one instance where a an amateur op caused an accident while using his rig while driving". I would say, irrelevant, and you are missing the point!

    So instead of making excuses, I feel it is everyones responsibility to use their mobile devices in a safe manner, law or no law. Contact your local governments and tell them we want our roads safe. There ARE legitimate times of use for a phone, or an Amateur Radio.

    Thanks,

    Dave
    Nothing like sitting around a campfire, working DX

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Grants Pass, Oregon
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    What research?

    Quote Originally Posted by KB1KQZ View Post
    Actually there is a big difference between half-duplex and full-duplex conversation with an individual outside of the vehicle. Research has shown the half-duplex is similar to listening to a broadcast and the conversation is paced by the driver plus the driver doesn't get lost in the conversation as one does in a phone call.
    another interesting thread:
    http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ted-Driver-Law

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •