Mobile Handheld Device/Amateur Radio Laws by State?

Discussion in 'On the Road' started by W3TPL, Dec 27, 2016.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: L-Geochron
  1. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm happy for you.
     
  2. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    And I'll stay happy so long as these air headed politicians don't enact "feel-good" laws and idiotic regulations that punish the innocent along with the guilty. THAT, I will fight to the last breath!:mad: I will support sensible laws, but this "distracted driving" thing is utter bull**** where two way radio is concerned. Regulations that seek to take control of two way radio by lumping it in with cellphones are mostly ONE thing: a revenue generator. Besides being an abridgment/superceding of Federal laws over the scope of use. So Mr dumb**s legislator can just go jump in the lake:D! ...............Or DRIVE into it!

    "Sorry, bud, about driving yer car into the ditch; wish I could help ya's, but y'all passed this here law so.............I guess you can just use your cellphone to call a rollback Or WALK!:eek:.:D:D See ya later.":D:D
     
    W3TPL likes this.
  3. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow. Just WOW... yet again. :(
     
  4. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well..............just Well!;);)
     
  5. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks for your opinions from your state, regarding RCW Title 46 in my state...
    ...and have a nice day. ;)
     
  6. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Its something to be watched for EVERY state because, more and more, the "nanny" state wants to "take care of you".:( It will come to a state near you. Actually, a bill similar to yours (state) was introduced by a local legislator in NC. It was shot down, thankfully. But it will come again. It will rear its ugly head again and again........................... And I will fight it again and again.

    73
     
    W3TPL likes this.
  7. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks for your opinion...
    ...and have a nice day. ;)
     
  8. AF7JA

    AF7JA Ham Member QRZ Page

    A lot of you are confusing the words training and conditioning. Training is a discrete activity that begins and ends. Conditioning is a social activity.

    You might have been trained to drive in a class you took in highschool; but how you treat driving is a result of conditioning. You were probably trained to use a cell phone, it probably took about two minutes. However, how you behave during a phone conversation is a result of conditioning.

    We cannot engage in more than one high cognitive task at a time. There are no good human multitaskers. If you think you are a good multitasker then you have fallen prey to the Dunning Kruger effect. that being said, there are good task switchers, the difference is meaningful.

    There is a difference between low and high cognitive activities. We have been conditioned, which is different than training, to treat phone conversations as high-cognitive activities. Further, we have been conditioned to engage in certain protocols during phone conversations. Those conventions take time that a driver may not have in an emergency.
     
    N0TZU and WA7PRC like this.
  9. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    WOW that Dunning and Freddy's brother sure have been getting around on the Zed lately...... who knew !!
     
  10. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Right. But HOW "cognitive" IS operating a two way radio? OR adjusting the FM broadcast radio? OR the A/C? How do these compare to the issue at hand? The staggering fact is that it is the (1)cellphone and, (2) the duplex nature of it, that has brought this to the fore. The few studies that have been done show that these activities -----some which are necessary to the operation and comfort of the passengers/driver----have a very minute effect ON driving when compared to the cellphone So, it raises a few questions with reference to our personal freedoms. 1. Being that the aforementioned activities have such a minuscule risk, why should we be forced to give up our scope of movement by giving up the use of the two way radio which actually has great benefits? 2. Why is a cellphone so important that it should force others who may only rarely use one to give up THEIR pleasure and comfort, too? Is it because we subconsciously KNOW that cellphones ARE dangerous, so therefore, we think it isn't fair that users may be deprived of this desperate "teat" to which we cling, and, once again. if WE must give up our obsession, the innocent must do so as well? THAT is patently ridiculous! Its like Johnny put a bug in Cindy's hair. Billy was standing nearby. So he is deemed "guilty" by association; it "follows" that he must be punished as well? Never mind that, perhaps, Billy doesn't even know Johnny, but he must be punished, too. IMHO, that's the same thing as here--and is just as asinine as the above example! No, MORONIC!:( It is the cellphone that is causing 99.999999% of distracted driving. IT is what should be restricted. For THAT, and most other "offenses" that the 1/10 % are innocent, I would be highly in contempt and resistive. Sure would make a nice money trap for some little ant lion town and its fat Bubba cops.:mad:
     

Share This Page

ad: elecraft