Headphone police
Locked
 
|
> I hope we all remember that it is illegal to drive with headsets of
> any kind covering BOTH ears, or did I dream that? Most certainly up to state by state ordinances. Not that it makes much difference. It's still legal to drive with a stereo blasting to levels of isolation similar to those found w/headphones. John -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 5/27/2005 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Sunday 29 May 2005 06:04 am, john wrote:
> > I hope we all remember that it is illegal to drive with headsets of > > any kind covering BOTH ears, or did I dream that? > > Most certainly up to state by state ordinances. > > Not that it makes much difference. It's still legal to drive with a stereo > blasting to levels of isolation similar to those found w/headphones. > > John > Some cities have made that illegal too- Tucson, Arizona, for one. Not that the PD has much time to enforce it. 72, Bruce N7CEE _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by john-477
I concur
Ron, WB1HGA "CW, an esoteric experience" > Not that it makes much difference. It's still legal to drive with a stereo > blasting to levels of isolation similar to those found w/headphones. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Grubbs
Where those rules usually come into play is when a collision occurs. In some
jurisdictions, if one driver had the radio on full blast, was wearing headphones, or was using a telephone, he/she is at fault, regardless of other factors. When I lived in California some years ago, any driver with a cell phone in a collision had his/her phone record checked. If the phone had been in use at the time of the collision, that driver was charged with the collision automatically, even in cases where the OTHER driver was drunk or had run a red light and smashed into the car with the driver on the phone. The theory was that if the driver on the phone had been paying full attention to operating the vehicle, he/she might have avoided the collision in spite of the other driver's error. The person who was intoxicated or who ran the signal light might get charged for that offense, but the blame for the accident lay with the person holding the cellular phone. This isn't new. There was a lot of discussion about it in the 1950's when I was a new Ham. The question then was whether it was possible for a driver to handle a microphone while driving safely. There was a strong movement then to ban all use of a two-way radio by someone driving a motor vehicle. The trick is to be safe and never do anything that *someone else* might think would distract you from driving. Proving that your attention or reactions were in no way impaired can be very tough. Ron AC7AC _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Sun, 2005-29-05 at 09:25 -0700, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> When I lived in California some years ago, any driver with a cell phone in a > collision had his/her phone record checked. > Proving that your attention or reactions were in no way impaired can be very > tough. Proving that the cell phone was in use at the time doesn't prove that the driver was using it. Someone else could have been using it (either as a passenger in the vehicle or elsewhere). It could have been connected to a modem and laptop which was downloading a file in the back seat at the time. It could have been connected but not actually in use at the time of the accident ("hang on, I'm gonna put down the phone and pay attention to traffic, I'll be back in a moment"). Without witnesses who saw the driver using the phone, checking phone records proves nothing. -- 73, Brian VE7NGR _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Brian wrote:
Proving that the cell phone was in use at the time doesn't prove that the driver was using it. Someone else could have been using it (either as a passenger in the vehicle or elsewhere)... ------------------------- Absolutely right, Brian. My point was that the burden of proof was on the driver whose cell phone was in use, not on the driver of the other vehicle. Of course, 99.99% of the time the driver was talking. Ron AC7AC _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by john-477
At 09:04 AM 5/29/2005 -0400, john wrote:
> > I hope we all remember that it is illegal to drive with headsets of > > any kind covering BOTH ears, or did I dream that? At one time it was illegal in MD to have even one ear covered by a headphone. They passed that law after some poor fellow on his bicycle got himself hit by a train while he was listening to his stereo. 73 de Larry........WD3P in MD http://www.wd3p.net _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron D'Eau Claire-2
At 10:31 AM 5/29/2005 -0700, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>Brian wrote: >Proving that the cell phone was in use at the time doesn't prove that the >driver was using it. Someone else could have been using it (either as a >passenger in the vehicle or elsewhere)... >------------------------- And they will check if they can. I am reminded of the story told to me by one officer when he arrived on the scene of a collision. The "guilty" said the other woman was on her cell phone when the collision occurred. With the second woman's permission they checked her records - it turned out her first call of the day was to 911 to call the police. 73 de Larry........WD3P in MD http://www.wd3p.net _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by john-477
Don't be foolish. Nothing is illegal until you are indicted. When I was in shcool, a friend of mine was involved in an accident with an ambulance with its siren on. He had his car radio on too loud. I don't belive that hearing tests are a prerequisite for a driver's license in most state. They are certainly not in my state. But I agree, wearing headphones while driving is not a good idea. But common ordinary "horse sense" is no longer taught in the schools. 73, Steve N7VS > > I hope we all remember that it is illegal to drive with headsets of > > any kind covering BOTH ears, or did I dream that? > > Most certainly up to state by state ordinances. > > Not that it makes much difference. It's still legal to drive with a stereo > blasting to levels of isolation similar to those found w/headphones. > John _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Was it ever? I don't remember any classes in "horse sense".
Eric KE6US -----Original Message----- But common ordinary "horse sense" is no longer taught in the schools. 73, Steve N7VS _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Headphone police [ End of thread]
|
Administrator
|
Let's end this one. we're drifting -way- off topic :-)
73, Eric WA6HHQ Elecraft list moderator EricJ wrote: > Was it ever? I don't remember any classes in "horse sense". > Eric > KE6US > > -----Original Message----- > But common ordinary "horse sense" is no longer taught in the schools. > 73, > Steve N7VS _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |