ad: wmr-1

North Carolina is working on a "Distracted Driving" Bill

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by K4KWH, May 7, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. K2EZ

    K2EZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sorry, "distracted driving" is code word for "don't complain about my cell phone use, look at all those other things people do"

    You keep saying DISTRACTED DRIVING, when the sole reason "distracted driving" is the big issue is cell phone use. So why are we running around protecting cell phone while persecuting things that have a fraction of the risk associated with it. You equate phone with CB and ham radio, where is the data? Why in fact do some of the cell phone laws also protect CB, but not ham radio?

    If radio is bad, what about broadcast radio? What about audio books? What about any other external stimuli?

    We have decided as a society that cell phone calls are an acceptable activity in cars. Till that changes, it is somewhat specious claiming things that have never been as serious an issue should be banned.
     
    KK6VLV likes this.
  2. K2NCC

    K2NCC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I like that idea! And add parenting classes before you have kids, at least an A+ certification before owning a computer, psych eval before buying a gun, and an IQ test before voting.
     
  3. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow. Just... WOW. o_O
     
  4. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Anyone who drives around while texting people on Facebook or whatever needs to have their head examined.

    Talking on a radio or a cellphone, not so much. What needs to be understood is that it's not so much about the actual "talking part" that's the problem.

    The actual distraction occurs when a lot of user intervention is required to make the equipment operate. Looking up phone numbers, dialing a telephone number on the keypad etc.

    With radio equipment the distraction isn't about picking up the mic from the dashboard and depressing the PTT button either, it occurs when navigating different menus, changing PL tone, finding and selecting different settings and stuff like that.

    Back in the 70's we had a lot of simple to operate, 3 button kind of radios. Most were crystal controlled with nothing more than a Volume / Squelch and Channel / Vfo knob etc.

    Many of today's mobile ham radios are equipped with the same kind of complexity as operating a NASA space shuttle.

    Now if we all used 3 button commercial radio gear on the ham bands for mobile operation, I wouldn't necessarily call that a distraction while driving problem.

    But how do you make distraction driving laws apply to specific kinds of radio equipment...safer to use equipment while driving? That's what we need to be asking ourselves, because it's the responsible thing to do.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2018
  5. N6HCM

    N6HCM Ham Member QRZ Page

    on what grounds? citations, please.
     
  6. N6HCM

    N6HCM Ham Member QRZ Page

    it is. and when you're driving on a public road or freeway your freedom takes a hit when it gets in the way of other drivers getting to their destination safely.
     
    K2NCC likes this.
  7. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yeah.......let's outlaw everything! Let's outlaw pooping. Let's outlaw BEING ALIVE! Let's outlaw ALL our personal freedoms! That's what some people have been drooling over since 1917. VE MUSHT have control of Eff-re-t'ing (sic) in your lives! Your paperzzzzzz pleessss!"

    NO! Of course not! But THAT is the way its heading! In the guise of "good", laws are being passed that chip away at our autonomy, our personal CHOICES. "You VILL march in lockstep wiff vat VE zaaay". (C'mon, nice little sheep, come in to our pen! Its nice and warm. You'll have security). What was that saying, "Those willing to trade their freedom for security...........................deserve NEITHER"!! Or something to that effect.

    I believe, based on the info I can find, it is the cell phone that is having a detrimental affect both on our driving-- and even on societal behavior itself. I believe in laws that DO curb dangerous behaviors. I do NOT believe in, nor will I RESPECT, based on best evidence, laws that do NOTHING to address the actual problem. The actual problem is the obviously ADDICTIVE use of cell phones. So IF we must have a "law", then by thunder, let it address the ACTUAL problem. I refuse to go willing to "slaughter" by an ignorant, jackbooted state. At this time there IS no evidence that shows that the two way radio causes a distraction beyond......er....turning down the broadcast radio. Bring it FORTH to support all these ordinances. Show cause WHY! Not just because "AH say so, boy-ah".l I say they CAN'T. Its just not there, and there's 70 years of mobile two way radio to bring to court. There is also previous PRECEDENT (91-36) that shows Congress' AND FCC's support FOR mobile amateur radio. I also believe that current Federal law precludes states "enforcing, regulating, or restricting" amateur operations. State laws that have the effect (if they are true), California if so stated, are ILLEGAL on their face. It will remain so if we "go into their pen" like sheep and say nothing. Its what the states WANT: obedient SHEEPLE. Those timid souls who believe in rolling over and playing dead, cow-towing in fear will get EXACTLY that!!

    Some of us might say, "Well, the state CAN regulate our driving behaviors". SURE, they can. But the simple use of a microphone does NOT constitute "distracted driving". Seventy years SAYS so. The FCC and their regulations say so. How many times MUST it be said? It is the CELL PHONE that is causing the problem, NOT the two way radio.

    At this time I urge those who adamantly feel the way I do, those not willing to "go in the the pen" like willing sheep, please write both Laura Smith and the FCC Licensing Bureau urging a Declaratory Ruling in our favor that prevents jackbooted states from "regulating" our Service. I have--and will keep on until I get a Ruling of some sort. DON'T just sit there or roll over and play dead. Our INACTION is their best friend!
     
  8. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    1.Current FEDERAL law in and of itself. 2. Previous precedent in Court Brief 91-36. This states an unqualified support for "mobile amateur operations", the ability to "take mobile amateur radios across state lines unhindered". This is in the Federal Record and readily accessed via Google. If you can twist what it says in order to support states' bans, restrictions, whatever, I would have to question one's grasp of the English language. It does NOT mince words. Precedents are used from past court cases to win current/future cases. It is what I would take with me, NOT to a state court, but into Federal Court when I haul their a** in to sue **** out of 'em!

    States do NOT issues licenses. States do NOT regulate amateur radio. FCC makes the Rules. MY license is JUST as valid as that state's, who, BTW, can't "license" themselves. My license says I may do certain things within the FEDERAL rules; the states' license allows them do do certain things--within the Federal rules. If *I* violate the rules, I will get cited. If the state violates their license parameters, THEY will get cited just like ME. We are on a equal footing AFA FCC is concerned. It needs, and I hope, will get, a Declaratory Ruling reaffirming FCC's historic governance of amateur (and all) radio. Thankfully some states have already recognized this and have exemptions.
    s
     
  9. WY7RF

    WY7RF Ham Member QRZ Page

    You honestly think that picking up a mic while continually looking at the road is unsafe? You yourself might think that it is unsafe if you do it, but many people are quite capable of doing that quite safely without endangering others.
     
    KK6VLV likes this.
  10. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow. Just... WOW. o_O
     
  11. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    So WHAT does it HURT to ASK for this exemption? The worst that can happen is, FCC rules that states now have the authority to regulate, ban, restrict, otherwise enforce bans on the use of mobile amateur radio. The best that can happen is that the Licensing Bureau passes a Declaratory Ruling that FCC is the SOLE regulatory authority and any such state laws are illegal on their face. Or they might say, states can enforce their distracted driving laws, but only with input from FCC as to the degree of enforcement WRT amateur radio. Maybe they would uphold, for example, the states' ability to prevent the use of mobile radios with some sort of Blue Tooth device (hands-free only).

    Based on current US law, history, and previously cited precedent, I believe they will side with US as they did back around '93 during the Scanner Law problem we faced then. The states were citing--even seizing--licensed amateurs' radios, calling them "scanners". This is a different "wolf" in a different guise. It has the same effect it had in '93: preventing the legal use of amateur radio already approved by the Federal government. It goes against clearly outlined FCC endorsement of mobile amateur radio. Some of us don't recognize amateur radio as anything BUT a hobby. Clearly Congress and our FCC does not see it that way. It is that hobby that hones our skills when the chips are down. Others here keep bringing up distracted driving and implying that amateur radio is equally culpable. Your links bring up ONE thing: cell phone, cell phone, cell phone, cell phone, ad infinitum. Those links only enforce ONE thing: that it is the CELL PHONE that is causing the problem. So lets stop people from using their cell phones while driving. But, AH! Bu-bu-bu-bu-but people VOTE, and I'm afraid that if I put in legislation against this "teat" of theirs, they'll vote me OUT". So lets ban ham radio even tho it is NOT the problem. It's not popular like the cell phone and "social media".

    Those of who who believe so clearly that this "security" is more valuable that your personal freedom:eek:, come by my house. Hot weather is here, and its "shearing" time!:D

    What will it hurt to ASK for the exemption nationally?
     
    KK6VLV likes this.
  12. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Since there's no need and no public benefit for hams to ragchew while driving their lethal vehicles, "hurt" is an appropriate word.
     
    N6HCM likes this.
  13. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Then lets ban lethal vehicles too.
     
    KK6VLV, N8TGQ and K4KWH like this.
  14. KA5ROW

    KA5ROW Ham Member QRZ Page


    I disagree You pre set your 2M rig with channels tones and all. So it is no different than a CB 40 years ago. In my part of the country there are about 3 repeaters 75% hams monitor. I am sure no matter where you are it's the same.
     
  15. WQ2H

    WQ2H QRZ Lifetime Member #214 Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

Share This Page

ad: CQMM-1