ad: Retevis-1

HamRadioNow: California Drivin' (or Nightmare?)

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by K4AAQ, Mar 20, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KM1H

    KM1H Ham Member QRZ Page

    Afraid of a "possible $300 fine" were you? Considering the odds of getting stopped, Id say that was pure wimpy.

    Im 76 and my first bike was a 47 Indian Chief in the late 50's and my last was on a 71 Norton Commando I rode all over the midwest. When I transferred back to NH from IL in 73 I sold it a year later since the drivers in New England are complete idiots and I went back to 4 wheel fun.

    My first 121 mph run was in a 64 GTO that was extensively modified and the best 1/4 mile ET was 11.97 which was .01 off the record also set in 66. In various dragsters Ive been as high as 187 mph as a driver, not owner. I also raced stock cars from 57 to 79 as a non owner builder and/or driver
    Ive also built several Street Rods and sold the last one in 20o9, mostly Flathead Ford/Merc V8's and some with superchargers. That last one was a 1926 Model T coupe that was fairly docile in street trim, and a 12 second machine in strip trim.
    A daily driver in bright sunny weather is a 68 Chevy Impala SS convertible with a 396.

    I also still work out and my 52 year old GF of several years is a former Russian Army pilot of props and choppers. We go to many interesting places in one of the Cessnas she has available to use for her job at Homeland Security. Having me along keeps her Instructors Certificate log looking good. I just might solo this year:cool::eek:

    Oh, and Ive been called many things but never a wimp:p

    Carl
    Ham since 1955
    USN/USNR 1959-87 CWO4 retired
     
  2. K0MAN

    K0MAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Carl keep moving forward. Love it!!
     
  3. K2EZ

    K2EZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I find it very disturbing that simply putting "hands free" lipstick on the pig of cell phone use (which has been documented as not reducing the distracting effect) is never questioned.

    And because we (as a society) have accepted the false premise that it is the "hand held" use that is the problem, by extension, holding a microphone for a mobile radio is a major distraction and should be banned. Yet we merrily say go ahead using cell phones and accepting their distraction as we have sanitized cell phone use by uttering those mystic words "hands free". And of course, if you have to take your eyes off the road to touch or swipe (as the CA law permits) that is just ducky too.

    Meanwhile with my free hand (that wasn't on the wheel anyway), without ever having to take my eyes of the road I can't reach down, grab the mic and lift it to my mouth to say some words because that is an unacceptable distraction. Compared to that ongoing phone call that's nothing. Give me a break.

    Now it would be perfectly "legal" according to the CA law to use a head set with my radio and have a touch screen where a single "touch" to initiates/terminates a transmission. So instead of simply picking up a mic, I just need to look away from the road to hit the button, and when I am done talking take my eyes off the road again to end the transmission. Even ignoring the distraction the headset wires may cause, that only makes the situation worse.

    From my own experience, hands free cell phone use is far more a distraction than getting on my radio. I never felt the radio was a serious distraction. The phone conversation clearly draws me into it in a way that radio does not. I rate most serious distractions in starting with the worst as follows:

    1) Texting, web browsing or any other lookup function on a cell phone

    2) Screaming kids, just when are gags and their mandatory use going to be required part of child seats?

    3) Making/Accepting cell phone calls, that touch/swipe stuff that CA thinks is fine

    4) Police cars, I must have a guilty conscious.

    5) Fatigue, falling asleep is not good

    6) Boredom, a big enemy on long drives, when the minutes seem to drag on, when there is risk of falling victim to highway hypnosis and daydreaming and often a factor in bringing on fatigue.

    7) Ongoing phone cell phone calls, not really a fan of being on the phone in the car, but this it is better than letting boredom take hold

    8) Eating/Drinking

    9) Music, sometimes good, but really prefer no music, certainly doesn't improve my driving.

    Ham radio is down around 27 on the list and is often instrumental in avoiding boredom. Like all things tho it depends on the situation. I am probably not going to suffer boredom in a urban driving environment. Just too much going on. On the other hand I probably wouldn't operate my radio in such a setting either.
     
    K6CLS likes this.
  4. NL7IB

    NL7IB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sloppy laws create huge problems. CA living at it's best.
     
  5. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    @K2EZ, you nailed it. Smoking gun, a Motorola study from early 80s showed duplex conversations (phone) were too distracting, and simplex were just slightly distracting but not so bad.

    @NL7IB, correct. Software analogy, writing good law is like writing good specifications. Really difficult!

    The doofus that wrote the CA law refused all advice about the wording, preferring to let the LEOs and courts sort it out. The reason for the new law was the existing law was boxed in to a corner, with contradictory court opinions. So, unenforceable.

    Well, my taxpayer dollars are wasted on this monkey business. So how about recalling the doofus representative!
     
  6. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    That is why I contend that IF this "distracted driving" stuff was such a danger with regard to two way radio, it would have become so during the CB craze of the 70's & 80's. ONLY when the cellphone became so prolific did this show up as a problem! Now ignorant people who know sh** from shinola about radio want to lump innocent users of radio in with the actual culprits, and it is just not right. I am not a puppet, nor will I march in lockstep with those who would attempt to control my life cradle to grave, telling me every little move I must make. *(Yawol, Mein Herr, CLOP! Your paperzzzzzz are not in order, you must come mit me to vere you will be interrogated!)*:mad: No. I will turn OFF 'radar cruise cruise' rather than use it. I DESPISE those things.:mad: I will NOT drive a car that suddenly comes to a stop without my input. I will never own a self-driving car. If I'm gonna do that, I'd just take the train. I don't want your help. I don't want your snotty little nose in my business. My freedoms in exchange for "security"? NEVER!:(
     
    K7XRL likes this.
  7. N7WR

    N7WR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    As a former CA cop I would suggest that until the law is amended/clarified to specifically exempt hams from the provisions of this legislation DO NOT operate your ham radio while driving. CA is in deep financial trouble and most traffic infractions are now nothing more than revenue generators. Many cops will write a ticket just for that reason
     
    W6GRD likes this.
  8. AE1N

    AE1N Ham Member QRZ Page

    CA Driving.jpg
    CA Driving2.png
    Layne AE1N
     
    N3AB likes this.
  9. K7UU

    K7UU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Doing anything in your car -- other than driving your car -- can be a bad distraction. Cell phone conversations, texting, AND YES chewing the rag on your mobile rig take away from one's concentration. The ARRL and others need to stop defending what can be a very dangerous practice. I use a 2m H/T in my car only when I'm parked.
     
    WA7PRC likes this.
  10. K7XRL

    K7XRL Ham Member QRZ Page

    Preposterous. 2 way radios are not the problem, it's texting while driving. Until the advent of smart phones, no one was even discussing distracted driving. If 2 way radios are such a distraction, we would have seen a ton of accidents surrounding their use going back decades.

    There just isn't anything to back up the claim that the risk outweighs the benefit. For my part, I am willing to risk my life by allowing other drivers to use 2 way radios while driving in order to preserve the freedom to do so myself.

    Texting is far more dangerous because it requires looking away from the road for long periods and typing on a phone. You can't compare the two activities because they require vastly disparate degrees of attention.
     
    K3SZ likes this.
  11. NE1LA

    NE1LA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Just a question. Are police officers exempted from this law? Or even the drivers of fire trucks? Cause you know, they do have radios which they use to communicate with their dispatcher, right?:rolleyes:
     
  12. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    And believing as I do that current Federal law supercedes California's law WRT the use of a two way radio, if I got a ticket from CHP, I would be the one to see if I could worsen their financial plight as much as possible!!!:mad:
     
  13. N7WR

    N7WR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes the "new" law exempts them
     
  14. NE1LA

    NE1LA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Oh ok. So I guess there is such a thing as "above the law". I guess that they are not getting distracted like the rest of us when they use their ptt on their mics. Oh well.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  15. K7UU

    K7UU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Different tasks affect the brain differently. Listening to music is different from engaging in a cell phone call, etc. While some distractions are literally impossible to avoid (screaming baby, as you pointed out), other can be completely avoided.
     

Share This Page

ad: MyersEng-1