Breaking News: Amateur Radio Wins Exemption To Proposed IL. Distracted Driver Law

I think it just means that you should wait for a big inspection visit by the local politicians before you transmit (on high power).

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

 

Now, if Illinois would lighten up and enact a CCW law (last one in the US to not have one), I could carry and talk while driving through there.. Hello, Tom.. I used to live in Montrose... my sister is in Olathe.

Everyone needs to just use common sense while playing radio while driving.

 

Montrose lost you. But look on the brite side: They gained me.

I have always felt sorry for Olathe-----

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

 

rather a dumb question. what person would ride around with transmitter only unless there flying models.

 

Unless, of course, you happen to be the poor unfortunate who is stopped by another LEO like that one in NY State last year. "All the same to me," the ham was told when he tried to convince LEO it was a ham transceiver, not a cell phone. Fortunately for NYS hams, he fought it and won, but I imagine there are plenty of other cops throughout the other 49 states, including IL, with similar attitudes.
VY 73...Joe

 

1. Illinois folks: Until and unless this is signed by the governor, make sure you keep a vigil eye on it. Bills frequently get modified during the process.

2. The word "or" in the section means that any one or more of the items listed are exempt. Yes, it's poorly worded, but its meaning is there.

3. As a newly retired law enforcement officer (and legal instructor) with 29 years experience, it is true that you really don't need new laws. In Florida we have a careless driving statute that would cover distracted driving of any sort.

73, Dan AI4GK

 

This is a shame.. If they are going to regulate phone usage, they need to regulate amatuer radio usage, not exempt it.. Another case of a regulating agency or law
maker being conned by the ARRL ..

 

I think we have far too many laws. For every new one I think two obsolete ones should be removed from the books.

Same for politicians.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

 

I agree completely. I fail to see a practical difference in distraction level between operating an amateur transceiver and a cell phone; in fact I believe that it is more distracting to operate a transceiver than a phone.

I know that many people think that they can perform brain surgery, county hunt and drive at the same time without loss of driving ability, but years of racing and being involved the development of automotive telematics systems has taught me that everything impacts our overall car control. Many will deny it, but there is a wealth of research to support my assertions.

The big question is: does committing a portion of one's limited attention to communications reduce the safety margin to the point that there is a measurable increase in risk? There is no perfect answer, but it's clear that diverting one's attention and control focus away from driving has a certain risk.

Mike

 

The biggest challenge to that question is the wide variation range of brain capacity there seems to be among people. I have witnessed many drivers that while driving safely, one could tell they were having to use almost 100% total and complete attention, hands clinched tightly on the steering wheel, eyes locked straight ahead, and anything at all distracting, like a horn honking could cause them a near panic and unpredictable response. Others seem to be able to drive completely safe with all sorts of internal and external distractions about them. I guess the challenge to law makers is that with equal protection rights and all they have to try and craft laws so at to deal with the 'worst case' mentally challenged (not mentally ill, rather just lower mental capablities) people while the majority of people feel they are being micro-controlled by 'mommy government'.

 

I fully agree, Tom!

 

I hate it when you do that!!!-----

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

 

I agree that the impact differs between people, and that every driving "event" is different. I am primarily challenging the attitude that a ham operating a 2M transceiver is "betterererer" somehow than anyone else operating a cell phone.

Mike

 

Precisely... To be honest (a novel idea), the ARRL should challenge all regulations governing specific types of "distracted driving" and encourage
enforcement of existing regulations that already exist. There is nothing special about ham radio operators nor is there any justification of
exemptions for amateurs. If a driver is observed driving in a distracted manner, he should be cited. Does it really matter if he is using a cell
phone or lighting a cigar, or operating his ham rig?

NI7I

 

That point has been beleagered here (often by me) over and over. I'm not going to do it again! But there IS a difference in that a cellphone tends to demand ALL of one's attention due the dual stream of information and operating requirements of the equipment itself. The two way radio does NOT. If you want to argue about distractions, ANYTHING can be a distraction---even if it is a two way radio----IF you let it. The fact that FEW accidents have been caused by TWR radio users while the cellphone is a PROVEN distraction; the accident stats regarding the users' engagement with their cellphone proves it. It IS the cellphone that has brought attention TO "distracted driving" after all! I don't think I have EVER been "shied" out of my lane by a two way radio operator, but I sure have been by some cell junkie out in la la land on his/phone!

J