SB61 in CT Needs your support.

I would hope the ARRL has a broader view than simply the entertainment from a toy hobby. They should advocate for anything that distracts driving including the use of a radio for entertainment

 

SO!! You would also outlaw repeaters! They were and are there for mobile operators. No use except when pulled off, can't do that safely on many major roads. Check the illegal stopping ordinances. No use for HR in car, no HR in car, no HR in car no need for repaeaters. NO REPEATERS MAJOR JUSTIFICATION FOR 2 METER BAND. Add 70 CM as well.

If HR is to be banned in automobiles so should be entertainment devices, GPS units and any thing else that is not directly associated with driving. All can distract and distraction is distraction.

KF7CG

 

Do you have anything whatsoever to back up your position? While you're doing your study, study police vehicles and taxicabs, too. But if you go into the study expecting a particular result, don't be surprised if you get it.

In this country, we have historically deemed activities to be innocent until proven guilty. I've seen no real evidence whatsoever to support outlawing two way radios. I've done thousands of hours of mobiling and never once had a problem involving a radio. So, my personal "study" of the matter would tend to believe that your hypothesis is deeply flawed.

The current legal system will, indeed, make you pay through the nose if they can prove you were on the radio at the time of an accident - regardless of the actual cause. No further laws are needed.

How has this impacted us? Yesterday I was on my DSTAR HT having a QSO with a fellow in California. For the first part of the QSO, I was on foot, but I got in the car and drove off, so I excused myself from the QSO. Why? Because I didn't want anyone to see me holding the HT in my hand and think that I was on a cellphone. Of course I had an "expert" break in and advise me that as a federally licensed ham, I am exempt from such laws - 100% wrong, by the way. That exemption has nothing to do with cellphones. And, even though I know a lot of the cops in town, and several of them are hams, I would not like to have to argue with one, or somebody's injury lawyer, about whether or not my HT is a cellphone. I briefly explained this, and the "expert" corrected me again. So maybe there is some validity for the argument that it should be outlawed - some people are too dumb to talk on the radio, or chew gum, and drive at the same time.

I will say that the proliferation of these laws has caused me to modify my mobile operations quite a bit. I no longer operate in traffic, other than some 2 meter FM - if the road traffic starts to get heavy, I turn off the rig. Part of that is due to age - men over 50 are more easily distracted, and I am not immune to that. But if I want to drink hot coffee, send Morse Code, or play tiddlywinks in the middle of nowhere on a 4 lane highway - that my concern.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are much bigger dangers. They've both been known to cause blind rage in those who listen to them. So, if you outlaw Limbaugh then we can talk about 2 way radios.

 

I won't fiddle with my GPS when I'm in motion - never. I don't even consider dialing a cellphone while mobile (or dialing up an autopatch on the local repeater either). I won't program my radios or play with the menus in motion - no matter what, it can wait for the next stop, and if it won't I can usually pull over and do it. I do operate mobile CW, however. I can do so without ever taking my eyes off the road. If I have to change bands, I pull over.

I don't consider talking on the radio to be nearly as distracting or dangerous as smoking or eating while driving. I don't smoke anymore, but I dropped enough lit cigarettes in my lap while driving to know that it's a very poor idea! I avoid eating on the road and won't do it in any traffic at all.

As hams, we are used to having our conversations abruptly terminated for any number of reasons - QRM, QRN, QSB, etc., so it's no big deal if I have to drop out of a QSO because my driving skills are needed. No offense brothers, but I don't hang on every word of yours, and I may miss a character here and there on CW. I don't panic if I forget your name. And I don't ever get so wrapped up in chasing DX that it becomes challenging. In other words, you're only getting part of my attention - sometimes a very small part - maybe even less than I give the BC radio. I'm serious about Limbaugh and road rage, by the way. It's hard to drive when you're foaming at the mouth.

Now talking on a cellphone is different. Half of those calls are business related, and the other half tend to be important personal or social calls. I MUST pay attention to what's being said. I think the same is also true for commercial and governmental 2 way radio - police lives depend on them.

 

Of course, I dont.. I didnt msay I did.. Your "study" is of course, anecdotal.. One sample is a bit shy of a "study".. I agree that we really need no new laws.. What I suggest
is that, if we are goping to support regulating the use of cel phones, we shouldalso include hamradios in the same regulation. Most hams probably have no problem using their
rigs while driving just as most cell phone users have no problems using their phones. I dont believe that hams are all that special thatthey deserve
to be excluded from these "dujmb" laws.

NI7I

 

Most of the repeater traffic around here is NOT done from mobiles. I dont know of much ham radio communications that cant wait till you are
able to safely and legally pull off the road. Aside from that, I didnt see where the poster you were addressing said anything about repeater
usage.

NI7I

 

EXACTLY!

Yes!--- Let's not forget the truckers hauling 40 tons and using the CB!

 

Right on! You hit the nail on the head!

 

This is what I have been trying to say in the last several threads...talking is talking. And in addition to talking, there can be and often are control inputs made into mobile ham radios that simply aren't needed on cell phones. I have listened to ops give running dialogs, as they were driving ("I'm coming up on my exit"), about programming call signs and PLs into radios. I'm not saying everyone is doing that, but come on!

The assertions that conversations on ham radios are somehow "safer" than cell phones just boggles the mind...

Mike

 

If you do not think you can operate a radio safely while you drive, then please don't. Only just because you can't, don't tell me or the multitude of radio operators globally, who have been doing mobile ops with "safety" in mind for decades, that we are suddenly deemed incapable of "safe" operation of a motor vehicle. And especially in defense of poorly thought out and widely propagated legislation.

 

+1

These laws are all new. Prior to 2000, there probably were no such laws on the books, and no one was even thinking about it, because it was not a problem. Hams had been operating mobile for 40+ years at that time, and we had been through the CB craze of the 70's, when many more people had radios in their cars. Never was a problem.

Now we have kids texting and wrecking. OK, not just kids. But now it's a problem, all of a sudden, for hams and CBers to use a radio. But operating a GPS is OK? These laws are knee-jerk reactions to try and solve a problem. Most of these laws do not cover HR by definition, and many states have no law in force, yet some here want to get on the bandwagon and ban all sorts of stuff that has never been shown to be a big problem.

Next it will be talking to passengers, or operating a stereo system, or smoking or drinking a Coke. If you, as an individual, do not feel competent to drive a car, and operate a radio, smoke, or drink a coke, then DON'T DO IT! But please leave the rest of us alone to do things we are competent at doing.

Joe

 

I sat in on the discussion of this law in Hartford,Ct.I will agree that texting while driving is very dangerous.I have seen people blow stop signs while on the cell talking or texting.But this law has very little to do with public saftey and everything to do with how much money they are going to make and spend.They even dicussed how much money they where going to lose by enacting this law.The towns are going to be on a quota system because the boys in Hartford have already added this money to the general fund for there continuing spending spree.This is after our governor passed 72 new taxes on us here in Ct.This is just another loss of freedom and people better WAKE UP!

 

What of the multitudes of cell phone operators globally who have been using their phones with safety in mind for years..
Why should they be deemed incapable of safe operation of a motor vehicle?

NI7I

 

There does appear to be some controversy here. Hopefully I can add to it.

First off let the nay sayers produce some actual studies and documentation showing that operating a mobile radio causes accidents. There are mobile radios in ambulances, police, fire, ems, oil trucks, wreckers, taxis, utility, and the list goes on and on. These vehicles have been operating for decades without mishaps enough to document. Add to that the myriad of CBs and Hams out there - as the lady once said "Where's the beef?". If some of you like to have laws made before there is a reason to enforce something. In that case we can legislate lots of everyday potential problems out of existance. Outlaw miniskirts - women wearing them have probably caused more accidents than all of the Hams since the day the first 2 meter rig hit the road. If you can't do that, then please, as another said - don't operate mobile, and let the rest of us who don't have an issue doing that, alone.

This bill restores privileges we have had since the late 1960s without interruption. Hams have been exempt since then - without an issue. This whole deal came about in a recent re-write of PA 05-220 which painted any electronic device into the distracted driving picture - except for emergency services. It was basically an unfortunant oversight.

If you look at the OLR report - they couldn't find any reason we shouldn't be exempt - and that was after they researched other states and looked for documentation / studies to prove ham mobile operation is a safety issue or not.

THe OLR report also talks about lost revenue and revenue made from cellphone based arrests. Money does play in this. Since they can't show we contribute to the problem the figure was minimal that we'd contribute from being pulled over and ticketed. Which by the way all the hams I know whove been ticketed and fought and won - that ends up costing the state more money to prosecute and pull officers off patrol for a "busy work" type arrest.

A Ham Operator IS NOT EXEMPT FROM DISTRACTED DRIVING with this bill - if we are distracted and crash into something, make an unsafe lane change, or any other issue we will be ticketed, or arrested, for distracted driving and/or the actual problem offense. All this bill does is prevent us from being pulled over and ticketed simply for operating a licensed ham radio. Unlike Police, Fire, and EMS we still cannot use a cell phone, only a Ham Radio.

To the Ham who commented about the ARRL - they have been working with us behind the scenes on this and in other states.

Lastly if you think hands free is the answer - the safety nerds are after that too.

 

Because there are tons of statistics showing cell phone use causing accidents. You don't think our government would make laws for nothing do you?