North Carolina is working on a "Distracted Driving" Bill

Doesn't matter what year the reports or laws are cited, that's usually a +1T Missile that you need to be in control of at ALL TIMES...

Distracted Driving is a well proven factor in so many "accidents" that there is absolutely NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER...

NO CB, NO HAM, NO CELL PHONE, NO RADIO, NO TEXT, NO MAKEUP, NO HAIR DO, NO MAP, NO GPS, NO EMERGENCY, COULD EXCUSE YOU FROM PILOTING A MISSILE "DISTRACTED" WITH MY FAMILY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY!

Sorry guys, but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MULTI-TASKING... We, YOU ARE NOT THAT GOOD... NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE!...

I said it 40 years ago and I stand by the statement "I would rather be on the highway with a drunk driver than someone who is distracted... As poorly/dangerously the 'drunk''s driving, at least he's 'trying' and usually obvious... the distracted driver is an 'inept terrorist', Nuff Sed!"

USE VOX and Hands-Free if you must... OR EVEN GET THE HELL OFF THE ROAD TO MAKE THE CALL...

Get distracted for the blink of an eye and it may ME and MINE (OR YOURS) that get dead... And it only takes 1 error... NO REGRETS PLEASE!!!

 

If people can't take their eyes off of the road for a half a second, I would suggest that they stop tailgating.

 

Why do you say use hands free? How does that help? With cell phones it is shown to make no difference. On the subject of two way radio equipment installed in the vehicle there is nothing showing this as a significant problem unlike testing with cell phones.

The shouting using caps does not make your statement correct.

So is listening to broadcast radio okay? Adjusting volume okay? Changing the station? Listening to an audiobook? Where do you draw the line?

Or are you one of these that insist no stimulus be present other than driving? You know that condition that promotes ones mind off into some other thought leaving their body driving with their head up their ass?

Also did you say you drive with kids in the car "MY FAMILY IN THE IMMEDIATE VACINITY"? How do you deal with that distraction?

 

You still fail to address my other statements, every bit of data you post only goes back to cell phones.

It did not go from thousands to hundreds of millions. Two way radio users have numbered in the millions on the roads. If this was such a distraction it would have showed up in the data. Cell phones showed became an apparent issue long before the current high adoption levels.

And with regards to the Texas Law, seems pretty sensible, but you are incorrect, it does not apply to two way radio. Really sensible about the Texas law is no cell phone use in school zones and by new drivers. It recognizes that hands free doesn't solve those problems.

And of course there is that inconvenient bit that as a society we have legislated in a way specifically to permit cell phone use.

 

Practically every new car is equipped with a button on the steering wheel that connects to your cellphone through the car audio system.

Dialing is achieved through voice commands like "call home" or any other number the cellphone already has stored on it.

I don't consider my conversation with my rear view mirror microphone while maintaining control of my steering wheel with both hands to be anymore of a distraction than the idea of having a discussion with someone else sitting inside the vehicle.

As a ham I suppose it might be possible to come up with a Bluetooth interface of some kind that could take advantage of this hands free technology already built-in to the vehicle. Perhaps using the existing microphone in the rear view mirror and the PTT switch could become a button already on the steering wheel.

A little Bluetooth interface plugged into the data port on the rig could make everything happen and the car will just "think" it's connected to another cellphone.

 

Your statement here is contrary to the data. The data shows insignificant level of distraction difference between hands on and hands free when it comes to cell phone conversation. The conversation is not like having one with a person in the car with you as such a person in the car is aware of the surroundings in a way a person on a cell phone can't. That same person in the car also becomes a second set of eyes that compensates.

Moving from data to opinion/experience, I feel using a speaker phone method like you describe is better than a headset of any form.

 

And I'm glad he DID. CB and amateur radio, in and of themselves, are subject to governance by states. And that is the clarification I am asking for. It is now before the Wireless Bureau. FCC did it for us back in '93 over the "scanner laws". I think they will do it again.

 

And I hate to disappoint you, but I checked on the Texas law, and spoke with Sergeant Bynum, Texas HP (512-556-6390). According to the switchboard who referred my question to him, he is about #1 with Texas traffic laws. The Texas law APPLIES TO CELLPHONES. PERIOD. IF IT USES A *COMMERCIAL* SERVICE TO FACILITATE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, ONE MAY USE HIS CELLPHONE FREELY--EXCEPT IN A SCHOOL ZONE! THE LAW PRETTY MUCH MIRRORS NORTH CAROLINA'S. THERE IS NO STATE RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF A TWO WAY RADIO IN TEXAS. NA-NA-NA-BOO-BOO!
(BIG RASPBERRY )

Check before insulting! It pays to be nice! I believe there is a good chance for Federal exemption.

 

But they are not worried about driverless cars. Makes sense.

Bill - K5MIL

 

Arizona copied the Texas law and attempted to get SB1261 passed. It failed to pass, but did have the same exemption for amateur radio. https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/70369

Note C. 2.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/2R/bills/SB1261P.htm

 

Are they that brain dead??? Really.. lol

 

Most people refuse to understand that the distraction is NOT what you're doing with your hands, but what you're doing with your mind.

Try watching a movie and talking on the telephone at the same time. You're going to miss parts of the movie, or parts of the telephone conversation. Most people will pause a movie to answer the phone if they're really into the movie. Or they'll answer with a quick "I'll call you back." Why? Because they KNOW they can't do both.

Now don't you think that controlling your vehicle demands at least as much attention as you would give to a movie?

Talking with a passenger is not the same thing as talking with a disembodied voice. First of all, the passenger can be and often is another set of eyes while driving. Second, if you stop talking while driving, the passenger is a part of why because they can see that you're concentrating on your driving. Not so with a disembodied voice. "Dead air" on a telephone is a pressure on everyone. Why? Because if you're not talking, why be on the phone?!?!

Everyone thinks they're an exception, they can do both. Many people used to say the same thing about drinking and driving. Studies have shown that people using a phone, hands free or not, are just as impaired from the driving perspective as someone blowing a .08% BAC.

If the call is important enough to make, then it's important enough to pull over. If it's not important enough to pull over, then why are you on the phone?

 

And it goes right back to.................what? The CELL PHONE. It is the cell phone that is causing the problem, and I agree that it needs regulating. Where is all this "distracted driving" with regard to a two way radio? WHERE was it when there were thousands and thousands of CB radios in cars? Its just NOT THERE. Only upon the advent of the cell phone, texting, and looking at website while driving, did "distracted driving" come into popular awareness. Its about as distracting as performing other little chores while driving, (adjusting the A/C, turning on the car radio, adjusting the power seat, etc. I've asked people to bring forth all this "proof" that two way radios have more than a miniscule effect on driving. All they can say is "cell phone, this..............cell phone that"
v

 

This comes from the internet and and is a brief quote from Oregon's law:

"....................Permanently mounted or bolted-on electronic devices are exempted. Also, licensed amateur radio are allowed to use ham radios." I just called Oregon DMV, and again, I am finding out that we are alarmed over nothing. However, there may be, in the future, states who DO attempt to interfere with our privileges, and I want to be able to put the kibosh on that!