Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in
:



Alun L. Palmer wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote in
:

some snippage



I don't know if any of us geniuses have though about it,
but
lets say
in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a
woman not knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning
herself
when trying to hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry
Phil, but
what if she simply ruined her dress because the coffee was
wet?-
negligent design of the cup?)


I wrote a lot of the stuff you are commenting on, Jim. It's a hazard
of
us not trimming threads!

Same points apply

The case centered around the fact that the coffee was *extremely*
and
unreasonably hot.

Ask 10 people, and you'll get ten different answers if that was the
question. I assume that anything in a styro cup is Hot, until I can
examine it.

But hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns?

So lets have a newbie ham that fires up his/her kilowatt
rig, and is half fried because no one told him not to touch
the wirey
thingies on the back of the box thingy. Ohh, I can see the
successful
lawsuits already!

So what?

There's no license required to operate houshold appliances, nor
power
tools, which can be extremely dangerous. There's no skills test to
pump your
own gasoline. Or to climb a ladder.

I've nailed myself with 50 watts, enough to produce a
painful burn and a cute little scar on the boo-boo finger.
Some dunce that
catches a ride on a thousand watts might just have a very
successful
lawsuit if we don't train them well.


Who are they going to sue?

The manufacturers of equipment, the VEC that administered the test.
Find
some deep pockets and sue, sue, sue.

Then we better just give up, because there's no test to use a microwave
oven or a table saw.

One of the most dangerous substances the average person handles is
gasoline, yet there's no test for how to deal with it.

As a little example of the mindset, you might recall an accident
along
I-80 last year, a few miles from my QTH. Huge horrible pileup, many
vehicles, many people killed, and a fiery mess that took a long time
to
clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was
traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families
of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good
safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?

And on what grounds, compared to other
electronic devices?

Most of my appliances have warnings on them of electric shock
potential,
or of cutting, burning, whatever dangers also. There is a reason why
they are there.

Same warnings are on modern ham gear, aren't they?

Nobody can be protected completely from a lawsuit. But if you are
sued,
you are well served to have forewarned potential litigation
adversaries
of the possible dangers of the devices they may use.

Couple of stickers on the TS-50 and done. No need for a test, right?

RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one
should be a Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the
ability to
handle full legal limit.

The reason for the RF safety questions is to prevent exposing
*others*
to a hazard.

And the FCC has determined that the RF safety requirements of the
Tech test are adequate for hams who use up to 1500 W power output
on
"meat-cooking frequencies".

They're the *expert agency*, not the VEs or VECs. Heck, NCVEC wants to
*lower* the written exams - too much math and regs, sez they.

Shall we revisit "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"? I wonder if Len
Anderson and Brian Burke have read that wonderful piece, and what they
think of it.

I recommend it to all. Tells ya what the next step is.

And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or
some other weird thing is the answer, are advised to think
about things
such as Technician Hams operating under supervision. It only
takes a
second to drop a paper and reach behind a Rig. Less time than
the
control op can react. I want those Technicians to be exposed
to full
power safety requirements. Anything else is criminally
negligent.


But they are already tested on full-power requirements.

Yoiks! We're doing major time/subject shifting here, Jim! My
comments
several iterations of the thread ago were in relation to possible
changing of test requirements, ala the W5YI proposal, where the
newcomers are given a much simpler test, and things that I consider
critically important, such as not having your hobby kill ya, would be

dropped from the testing.

Not the W5YI proposal - trhe NCVEC proposal.


Everyone may disagree, but that's too bad.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a
woman not knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning
herself when trying to hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry
Phil, but what if she simply ruined her dress because the coffee was
wet?-negligent design of the cup?)


I wrote a lot of the stuff you are commenting on, Jim. It's a hazard
of us not trimming threads!


Same points apply

The case centered around the fact that the coffee was *extremely*
and unreasonably hot.

Ask 10 people, and you'll get ten different answers if that was the
question. I assume that anything in a styro cup is Hot, until I can
examine it.

But hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns?

Hot coffee is meant to be hot, and not poured on your skin, but rather
drunk, and the parts of the body that are supposed to be used are much
more tolerant of heat.

snippage

Who are they going to sue?

The manufacturers of equipment, the VEC that administered the test.
Find some deep pockets and sue, sue, sue.

Then we better just give up, because there's no test to use a microwave
oven or a table saw.

No, we simply make sure that people are *exposed* to safety
information. On the power tool or the oven, there are safety
disclaimers. I bought a chain saw that had an entire safety education as
relates to chain saws in the instruction manual. first page of the book
says that you have to read the entire manual before using the saw.

The Manufacturer has to make a good-faith effort to do safety education
for the tool.

Can that prevent lawsuits? No. But it makes it very difficult to win
that lawsuit when safety information has been provided.


One of the most dangerous substances the average person handles is
gasoline, yet there's no test for how to deal with it.


First, there is plenty of safety info about gasoline's flammability and
carcinogenic status on every pump (that is in legal compliance)

Second, gasoline is the sort of substance that people are used to. If
you told people that you had an idea of a sport where people drove at
each other at combined speeds of 140 miles per hour with a liquid that
was so flammable that it was virtually explosive, they'd say you were
nuts, even if you were telling them this in your car, driving down the
interstate at 70.


As a little example of the mindset, you might recall an accident
along I-80 last year, a few miles from my QTH. Huge horrible pileup, many
vehicles, many people killed, and a fiery mess that took a long time
to clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good safety program.


If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?

Of course. Was the trucking company following too closely?


And on what grounds, compared to other

electronic devices?

Most of my appliances have warnings on them of electric shock
potential,

or of cutting, burning, whatever dangers also. There is a reason why
they are there.


Same warnings are on modern ham gear, aren't they?

Sure


Nobody can be protected completely from a lawsuit. But if you are
sued, you are well served to have forewarned potential litigation
adversaries of the possible dangers of the devices they may use.


Couple of stickers on the TS-50 and done. No need for a test, right?

I disagree. I would think that as Hams, we should know WHY something is
dangerous, not just a "ohhh, don't doo that!" mentality.


RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one
should be a Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the
ability to handle full legal limit.


The reason for the RF safety questions is to prevent exposing
*others* to a hazard.

And the FCC has determined that the RF safety requirements of the
Tech test are adequate for hams who use up to 1500 W power output
on "meat-cooking frequencies".


They're the *expert agency*, not the VEs or VECs. Heck, NCVEC wants to
*lower* the written exams - too much math and regs, sez they.

Shall we revisit "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"? I wonder if Len
Anderson and Brian Burke have read that wonderful piece, and what they
think of it.

I recommend it to all. Tells ya what the next step is.


And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or
some other weird thing is the answer, are advised to think
about things such as Technician Hams operating under supervision.
It only takes a second to drop a paper and reach behind a Rig.
Less time than the control op can react. I want those Technicians
to be exposed to full power safety requirements. Anything else is
criminally negligent.


But they are already tested on full-power requirements.

Yoiks! We're doing major time/subject shifting here, Jim! My

comments

several iterations of the thread ago were in relation to possible
changing of test requirements, ala the W5YI proposal, where the
newcomers are given a much simpler test, and things that I consider
critically important, such as not having your hobby kill ya, would be
dropped from the testing.


Not the W5YI proposal - trhe NCVEC proposal.

Thanks for the correction!

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:

[snip]

clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was
traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families
of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good
safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?


Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I tend
to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak for
this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the trucks too
close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and the sometimes
tragic consequences?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:


[snip]


clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was

traveling

at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the

families

of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a

good

safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?



Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I tend
to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak for
this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the trucks too
close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and the sometimes
tragic consequences?

The speeds were well over 70. A truck that was passing the line of
traffic jackknifed and the rest is history. The police did not see fit
to issue any citations. All were traveling over the speed limit, and
when the storm blew up, they were waaayy too fast for the conditions.

As for who is at fault, I have several times had to speed up to
ridiculous speeds to not get run over by truck drivers who want to get a
run for the next hill At speeds of 85 and more, they will get close
enough for you to count how many bugs were caught on their radiators.
I've seen a number of accidents where a truck has simply run right over
the car in front of them

I carry a CB, and I must say that there is an urban myth, believed by
most truck drivers, that they *never* do anything wrong. What was
especially funny was the time a truck jackknifed in front of a line of
cars during a bad snowstorm - about 10 years ago - also on I-80, and by
the time ten minutes had passed, the story passed around by radio was
that a 4 wheeler had passed the truck, and cut him off, causing the
jackknife. The offending 4 wheeler was never found. Not surprising to
those of us who were close enough to see the accident happen!

Truck drivers are professionals, and almost always much better drivers
than those in the automobiles. But that doesn't mean they are never to
blame.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:


[snip]


clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was

traveling

at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the

families

of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a

good

safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?



Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I
tend to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak
for this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the
trucks too close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and
the sometimes tragic consequences?

The speeds were well over 70. A truck that was passing the line of traffic
jackknifed and the rest is history. The police did not see fit to issue
any citations. All were traveling over the speed limit, and when the storm
blew up, they were waaayy too fast for the conditions.

As for who is at fault, I have several times had to speed up to ridiculous
speeds to not get run over by truck drivers who want to get a run for the
next hill At speeds of 85 and more, they will get close enough for you to
count how many bugs were caught on their radiators. I've seen a number of
accidents where a truck has simply run right over the car in front of them

I carry a CB, and I must say that there is an urban myth, believed by most
truck drivers, that they *never* do anything wrong. What was especially
funny was the time a truck jackknifed in front of a line of cars during a
bad snowstorm - about 10 years ago - also on I-80, and by the time ten
minutes had passed, the story passed around by radio was that a 4 wheeler
had passed the truck, and cut him off, causing the jackknife. The
offending 4 wheeler was never found. Not surprising to those of us who
were close enough to see the accident happen!

Truck drivers are professionals, and almost always much better drivers
than those in the automobiles. But that doesn't mean they are never to
blame.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Did not mean to imply that truckers are never to blame. I too have had
truckers run right up on my bumper at excessive speeds and then honk to
attempt to bully the other drivers to move. Just noting that I have all too
often observed drivers in cars behaving like idiots around trucks and then
blaming the trucker.

I actually saw a case where a woman was circling a truck and causing a
hazard to everyone on the road because she was bound and determined to find
the phone number on the guys truck so she could turn him in. All that he
had done was make a left turn onto the street that I was traveling on.
Naturally, something that big is going to impede traffic slightly no matter
what he does. He did NOT cut in front of any of us. We all had sufficient
time to see him and adjust our speeds. This woman apparently thought he
ought to wait until there was no one whatsoever on the road before entering
it. Well he'd have been sitting there until he died of old age as that
street is NEVER clear regardless of the weather or time of day. After this
truck got on the road, the woman first sped up and pulled in front of him
and looked in her mirror. When she couldn't find a phone number, she pulled
over into my lane and braked and slowed down to examine the side of the
truck. She paid no attention to the cars already in the lane and created a
major hazard. The car ahead of me had to brake severely to keep from
hitting her. When she found no phone number, she braked even more causing a
major slowdown on a busy street and pulled in behind the truck to try to
find it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE