Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: DISTRACTED DRIVING LAWS - a solution  (Read 6965 times)
N8NSN
Member

Posts: 283


WWW

Ignore
« on: October 12, 2012, 04:06:39 AM »

OK, just read the article in November 12 QST ppg 81 & 82. Obviously public service reps, police, fire, etc. go through mobile devise op training (or do they - really?)... So, instead of every mobile ham going into panic mode over the notion that their mobile ops are under fire:

Why not the ARRL or another reliable affiliation (like whomever trains the police, fire, and civic operators) set up courses - at a fee of course, for amateur radio mobile ops? Duh... Seems like the notion of "eliminating mobile radio" is a very legitimate concern. What about commercial 2-way mobile? The list is extensive. Honestly, I hope someone with some legal/political pull reads or hears of the content of this post. I would GLADLY pay a reasonable fee for mobile commx safety courses. ALL police, fire, civic, and commercial 2-way operators should be mandated to take the training. It would cost money to study the possible content to cover and put it together, but well worth it.

Lastly, where would one search for the numbers of collisions which the use of an actual radio (yes cell phones are actually radios...) was the distraction which caused the collision? Cell phones are easily referenced, because of the time stamp on record. 2-way or amateur commx, not so much...

Anyone getting this? Anyone think this proposal/idea is worth a shot in circulation and implementation? Doing nothing will certainly end up costing us our mobile ops freedoms. Anyone out here that, like me, would GLADLY pay the fee associated for credible safe mobile ops training?

Just something to consider.

73
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5865




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2012, 04:20:10 AM »

Sorry, but I don't think it would.  The only way someone is going to get any such training is by actually doing what you're trying to master.

For example, take any touch typing course.  You have to get a typewriter/word processor/computer keyboard and actually use it and keep on using it until you gain the proficiency you're looking for.  It is much the same way when using a mike for two way radio communications.   
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 734


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2012, 05:59:25 AM »

Why not just enforce the existing DD laws?  If you drive stupidly, and endanger others, you get a ticket, and one that costs lots?  Ignore the why, and focus on the drivers actions.  For the life of me, I can't imagine why all the focus is on the why not the actions themselves.  Ticket someone for around $500.00 for every instance of poor driving.  After a few tickets they will get the idea...

I fear there is some thought that this will get ahead of the accidents and stop them prior to it's happening.  We just had an instance of a person killing a motorcycle driver...  Her and her husband were taking photos of each other just prior to hitting him.  I can't believe this is the first time they have ever been driving distracted...  Oh yes, and when something like this happens, charge them with Man Slaughter and make it stick.
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
KCJ9091
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2012, 06:17:11 AM »

Another Nanny Statist. You cannot make laws to force those without it to use common sense.  While you may be willing to have the government decide how and with whom you will spend you money, obama care, there are many of us who are not.  We don't need nor do we appreciate you suggesting the government force us to do so.

Something for you to consider.
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 734


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2012, 06:25:21 AM »

Another Nanny Statist. You cannot make laws to force those without it to use common sense.  While you may be willing to have the government decide how and with whom you will spend you money, obama care, there are many of us who are not.  We don't need nor do we appreciate you suggesting the government force us to do so.

Something for you to consider.
Are you suggesting that enforcement of existing laws is a "Nanny" sort of action?
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
K0BG
Member

Posts: 9839


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2012, 07:42:09 AM »

This rings of the same insanity that anti-texting laws do. We've had that law on the books here in Roswell, for over two years. Has it stopped driving and texting? No. Have all of the drunk driving laws stopped drunk driving? No. I could go on and on about capital murder, extortion, drug trafficking, etc. The laws punish the offenders for sure (if they're caught), but they will never quell human stupidity.
Logged

NK7Z
Member

Posts: 734


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2012, 07:58:20 AM »

This rings of the same insanity that anti-texting laws do. We've had that law on the books here in Roswell, for over two years. Has it stopped driving and texting? No. Have all of the drunk driving laws stopped drunk driving? No. I could go on and on about capital murder, extortion, drug trafficking, etc. The laws punish the offenders for sure (if they're caught), but they will never quell human stupidity.

So...  What IS the solution then?  If I understand the last two posts, the act of enforcing the EXISTING DD laws, (not anti cell laws, they are a waste of time), is not the answer...  What IS the answer, IS there an answer?  I totally agree people are stupid, thus using the stick method of punishment should be somewhat effective...  No?  Enforcing NO laws does not seem to be the correct way to handle this...  What IS the correct way of dealing with this issue?
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2012, 08:35:26 AM »

I believe it would be beneficial to incorporate some questions regarding safe mobile operation into the ham license exams. Hams should be encouraged to make adjustments to equipment or short VHF/UHF contacts while stopped at traffic lights. Longer HF QSOs should be from a parked mobile. This would take care of the "training" issue and bolster our argument that hams are safe.  Smiley

There are stop lights every five blocks here now and they are not synchronized, so there are plenty of opportunities for short transmissions. There are just as many parking lots, so safe longer contacts are not a problem. In the country, where there are longer stretches of road with little or no traffic, the safety rules could be relaxed.  Wink 

These are the things that I do to stay safe and they have worked for me. You know, public safety personnel communicated by two way radio for over 50 years without any special training. It wasn't until they placed the computers in the vehicles that they started rear ending the civilians and training was mandated. Even then, we have had several accidents lately due to these distractions, mainly involving the policeShocked     
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12672




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2012, 08:40:01 AM »

Well, if you don't have any DUI laws then some people will drive drunk until they kill themselves or someone else. If you have and enforce DUI laws then after being caught a couple of times they spend some time in jail, loose their license for a number of years, then require a breathalyzer installed on their vehicle when they get it back. In the process maybe we save a few innocent lives.

Two days ago I was on the highway next to an 18-wheeler. They guy was driving with one hand and texting with the other, looking down at the cell phone instead of eyes on the road. You don't think he could do some damage to other drivers on the road?
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12672




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2012, 08:46:36 AM »

You don't need a nanny-state when everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. However, when people act like children then you need a nanny to keep an eye on them so they don't hurt themselves or someone else.  Grin
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2012, 09:19:46 AM »

I was everyone's "nanny" for many years and I can tell you the problem is you can't catch them all! In fact, you can't even catch most of them. I found the best and most effective answer was educating the public to gain voluntary compliance.  Wink  
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 09:24:18 AM by KI4SDY » Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 734


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2012, 10:08:49 AM »

I was everyone's "nanny" for many years and I can tell you the problem is you can't catch them all! In fact, you can't even catch most of them. I found the best and most effective answer was educating the public to gain voluntary compliance.  Wink  
Hi,

You sound like you have Law Enforcement experience...  First off: THANK YOU!  Do you think that having laws which cause a rather hefty fine, and perhaps some jail time help reduce the total numbers of distracted drivers out there?  Would a good solution be to couple hefty fines/jail time with education?  How effective do you think education is in reducing the population of DDers?
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
NO2A
Member

Posts: 754




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2012, 10:39:02 AM »

I constantly see people driving while using cell phones,and yes it`s illegal. I don`t think hams talking on mobile rigs are the problem. The laws aren`t always enforced. It should go without saying texting should be punishable by a fine or worse I agree. Yet every time I drive I see people doing it.
Logged
KK4IKO
Member

Posts: 67




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2012, 01:12:39 PM »

I do believe the laws we have should be enforced, absolutely.  However, we might take a cue from traffic law enforcement in West Germany.  Yes, it is against the law to give another driver the bird; and fines are levied based on the offender's ability to pay.  You make more money, you pay more.  Hitting the pocketbook in a noticeable manner is a great attention getter.

Bruce, KK4IKO
Logged
N8NSN
Member

Posts: 283


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2012, 02:49:31 PM »

Well, I still would like to see the hard facts and associated numbers of how many collisions have been a result of amateur radio usage during the menial task of operating the motor vehicle.

Hmmm. Well let's see; I'm more concerned for new comers and VERY concerned as "We the People" allow our freedoms to be signed away with legislation and laws to protect other road users and the idiots from themselves... It would seem any remotely intelligent person would recognize the hazards involved with text messaging while driving.

Knowing ones gear and how to manipulate it with out even looking at it is a big plus. For the XYL and my set up; It's all mounted, overly securely, where the eyes never have to leave the road. With the exception of pauses while gear shifting and things like that it's normal to hear ol' N8NSN run 30 to 32 WPM coherently, or so I'm told - through the QSOs. The home brew paddle is mounted on the center console right where it needs to be for access to the shifters and all other things associated with the driving task. If your curiosity is peaked in this, have a look at the QRZ profile - photos of the mobile set up... Never even a near problem with the head copying or sending causing my driving skills to lack or even become remotely a hazard.

So, perhaps others could be "trained" to be sensible on their install... Another thing I am concerned with is the use of magnetic antenna mounts. I don't care how well or large the magnetic systems are; at 65 MPG - in a collision, that antenna system is going to become a lethal projectile. There is where some Ralph Nader types could do some good in prohibiting usage of unsafe accessories like mag mounts... No apologies here, that opinion is based purely on observations. I digress, this is leaving the scope of this thread.  Roll Eyes

OK, so how about those numbers?

73
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!