Discussion in 'On the Road' started by W3TPL, Dec 27, 2016.
I'll bring the butterfly net!
Maybe this'll be of help to y'all.
Washington State just passed a law (to go into effect Aug 16, ,2017) restricting the use of "personal electronic devices". With the help of many hams providing comment to the legislature, the law, as signed by the governor, contains a specific exemption for amateur radio. I would like to see a compilation of state laws relating to this issue. There are many web sites referring to cell phone use but the amateur radio exemption is only listed on a few states. Traveling hams need to know.
Q: How is it that hams (more than anyone else) can always safely operate a lethal motor vehicle while ragchewing on the radio?
A: They can't.
This is bad legislation (promoted & lobbied by Newington) that abrogates public safety, in favor of the desire of hams.
What could be worse than repealing the law for wearing motorcycle helmets when you are required to wear seat belts as is the case here in Pa?
BOTH laws don't make sense. IIRC, WA vacillated between requiring M/C riders to wear helmets and not. The law was repealed and then eventually, reinstated.
Q: What is another name for M/C riders who don't wear a helmet?
A: Organ donor.
I haven't ridden in many years but, ALWAYS wore a helmet.
Don't require helmets for motorcyclists BUT require seat belts so as to make them on par with motorists.
Not necessarily. First, it is a given that use of hands free cell phones does not significantly reduce accidents during cell phone calls. It is the nature of the conversation, not the nature of the device.
We are conditioned to treating phone calls as high cognitive tasks. Driving is a high cognitive task that, admittedly, has long low cognitive periods.
This is the danger, the long, low cognitive, periods lull drivers into complicity and they are not ready for sudden events that require full readiness and people cannot rapidly switch between high cognitive tasks, or perform more than one at a time. To make this worse, we have been conditioned to ending phone conversations with certain formalities; those formalities take time that may not be available when driving. Put simply, if someone is on the phone, they are not ready to deal with an emergency.
On the other hand, we have not been conditioned to treating the radio as a high cognitive activity. Further, we have note been conditioned to ending conversations abruptly. Consider, a trucker will simply drop the microphone when a driving emergency arises, letting it dangle in the cab while he deals with the driving emergency. . . how many people can just drop their cell phone?
It comes down to conditioning. there is a difference between the cell phone and Part 97/95 devices.
I'll buy that...but are ham radio discussions that much air headed than cell phones? IMO driving distracted is just what it says. And some people having discussions with themselves while driving are still distracted. Colorado's law targets teen agers on cell phones. I'm wondering how soon they will come after elderly folks on cell phones. In my mind they should target cell phones and not a particular age group.
I feel any radio or cell phone is distracting. IMO if you want to talk pull over. And as far as States go....it should be a Federal law applying to all states. I feel the same toward firearm laws also. Why should restrictions be applied on a state by state basis? There is a booklet available via the NRA on firearm laws by State....but they warn you up front that State laws can change at any time so don't sue them if you end up in jail while traveling.