North Carolina is working on a "Distracted Driving" Bill

The answer is that it's just a matter of numbers. The two-way radio numbers are miniscule next to the number of people with cell phones. Even when there were thousands upon thousands of CB'ers, that was still insignificant compared to cell phone numbers today. I'd bet a year's wages that the driver of almost every vehicle you see on the road has a phone in his possession, and it's with those numbers that the distracted driving has become such an issue.

I do believe that radio operators are just as distracted, and for the same reason: you can't focus on two things at once, something about one of the two must be missed while focused on the other. Again, the difference is in the numbers.

 

Cell phones didn't exist during the CB craze. WHERE was the "distracted driving" THEN? IF your premise were true that drivers are "just as distracted", then the problem would have shown up then. For then, and NOW, bring forth PROOF that, given that the two way radio is technically different from a cell phone (it is), that two way radios are *just* as distracting as the cell phone. SHOW me the instances where You, honestly, have been shied out of your lane by a TWR user? Show us how many times a radio-using driver failed to start up at a green light. Show us the statistics.
Two way radios don't DO that; the CELL PHONE does!

We are going to find out! Laura Smith has forwarded my letter/email to the Wireless Bureau, has assured me they ARE working on it. I believe it will come down that due to FCC's historical control of two way radio and *most* communications (cell phones are contract consumer devices), that a similar Rulemaking procedure and like 91-36 is forthcoming ("
the Commission has expressly amended its rules to facilitate and encourage unrestricted mobile amateur
operations. As we noted in a recent rule making proceeding to modify the rules governing the amateur radio service,"
AND
................................
directed all Government agencies to take into account the valuable contribution of amateurs when considering actions affecting the amateur radio service. We believe that the strong federal interest in supporting the
emergency services provided by amateurs cannot be fully accomplished unless
amateur operators are free to own and operate their stations to the fullest
extent permitted by their licenses and are not unreasonably hampered in their
ability to transport their radio transmitting stations across state and local
boundaries for purposes of transmitting and receiving on authorized
frequencies.)" Unquote direct from Brief 91-36

Time will tell.

 

You miss the point. The distraction was and is still there, just the numbers were and are so low as to not be a significant problem.

As noted, the numbers are everything, and you'd recognize this if you'd stop defending two-way radios use for just a minute. You CANNOT think about two things at once. You're either focused on your driving or you're focused on your conversation.

I guarantee you that if there were half as many mobile two-way radio users as there are cellphone users, we would not be having this conversation.

 

(Sigh) 1) The way a cell phone works is the key and is the real reason why we now have this distracted driving thing. It was NOT there prior to the cell phone. We've already discussed the differences in the two, and it is that difference that causes the problem. The cell phone, by its very nature, is the reason for the distraction. You are automatically "lumping together" two similar, but very different, animals. Kind of like.................well, everybody's to blame here, so we must apply "guilt by association". "Everybody" is NOT to blame here! It IS the cell phone, NOT the two way radio that is causing all this attention. SEE my previous posts. SHOW me the times you've been 'shied' out of your lane by a two way radio user. Then tell me the times you were forced to swerve by a cell phone user with one stuck so far his ********* he's lost ALL recognition of where he IS now. How many times have you tooted your horn at a two way radio user at a light that won't start on green? How many times have you blown at a cell phone user at the light? The two way radio causes about the same distraction as turning on the headlights. The cell phone IS the problem.

This whole thread has become stale and boring. I am so adamant about it because of 1)history, 2) FCC's current Rules structure, 3) Precedent in the form of FCC Brief 91-36 (which some of us just won't read). What I have gotten out of this, and other threads, is a sad impression that we are succumbing to years of conditioning for the nanny state. Somebody to do everything for us, to take care of us at all times. We "deplorables" don't have sense enough to run our lives, so the nanny state wants to do it for us. In the guise of things that sound good, they bring controlling programs into our lives. They look s0000000000000 innocent, but are actually deadly snakes that KILL our freedoms. Surely, new things sometimes cause unexpected problems. Cell phones cause distracted driving. That has been pretty much established. Two way radios do not.

Folk legend has it that you can put a frog in cold water and he LIKES it. By very gradually turning up the heat over time, he gets used to the heat and likes THAT, too. But eventually he will COOK. By the time he realizes he is cooked, its too late! So if we say NOTHING, accept and agree that the nanny state knows best, ignore asinine regulations that do nothing FOR the state OR for our hobby, what will they try next? Ban our hobby altogether? It has been tried before. Let 'em get their foot in the door with this, then its only a matter of time before the NEXT item of control shows up. Will we LIKE the "warm" water THEN?

Soon enough we will know. FCC will answer this one.

 

...and traffic has only increased.

 

Really? How would you know? Again, the numbers are what makes a difference. There has never been the number of 2-way ops that come close to even a significant percentage of the number of people using cellphones.

My friend, if you think that you can actively participate in a conversation with a disembodied voice while operating a motor vehicle, you're mistaken at the least, and quite possibly very dangerous.

You're bored by the thread because you're convinced that YOU are not and can't be a problem.

You say that the cell phone, "by it's very nature", is the reason for the distraction. Seriously? What nature is that? Having a conversation with a disembodied voice? You think that because you're a ham radio op using a radio that you're somehow different from someone using a cell phone?

Can you talk on the radio and watch a movie at the same time, and miss nothing from either?

If you're human, you CANNOT focus on two things at the same time! You're operating your vehicle on automatic when you use that radio, relying on your driving experience to automatically take care of you. The same comment comes out of any cell phone user's mouth.

There is no succumbing to nanny state conditioning. You have NO right to operate a motor vehicle, but it sounds like you think you do. What has changed is there is focus now on all distracted driving because there is so much more of it than before thanks to the cell phone. I for one will be fine if restrictions against use fall only on the cellphone and have no impact on ham radio ops, because, as always, there are so very few of them in comparison.

 

Proof can be found in one's past driving record. In 50 + years of driving everything from farm tractors, to tractor-trailers, to cars, I have never had but one serious accident. And that one was not my fault. (vehicle crossed center line, hit me head on). In 50 years, I have had ONE sort of two way radio or another in my car. NO accident in which I was involved (minor fender benders and bumps) EVER could be blamed on my two way radio.

Everything on the subject has been said (and ignored) for 10 pages now.

Yes. I AM convinced that TWO WAY RADIOS are not the problem.

Again this was discussed earlier. Obviously we don't READ prior posts before formulating one in return. The cell phone is "by its very nature" is the reason for the distraction. It is DUPLEX. It DOES act like a phone in that the activity is occurring right NOW, and the information that is causing the distraction is flowing in BOTH directions. That is what causes the driver to become directly involved in "distraction" because of the demand for instant response. Thus, the user becomes distracted due this demand for one's attention N O W, not later. The two way radio is SIMPLEX. It does not require an instanteous response. And the activity IS delayed. I. E., the operator listens to inflowing information, similar to listening to music on the FM radio, then he can respond BACK later. He can even tell the other guy, "Pse stand by' I'm in traffic", thus delaying the otherwise almost REQUIRED response that is caused by the cell phone. So, again I say, the predominant form of two way communications from 1947-ish- till 1985-ish was the two way radio. Thousands of them (CB) were installed in cars in the late 70's. If "distracted driving was going become a problem because of a two way radio, it would done so THEN! Relatively, two way radio doesn't compare in usage to the cell phone. Yet, taken the two issues separately, the cell phone is the reason we have having this conversation now. If there were STILL no cell phones (as in 1980), there would, IMHO, still be no issue because it IS the cell phone that has brought this UP.

NO! Because BOTH talking on a CELL PHONE, a two way radio and watching movies are activities that engage the viewer in interactive thought. ALL at once! At this point, watching a movie engulfs the user--same way a cell phone does. IOW it reaches beyond the mind's 'multitasking' abilities. The cell phone ITSELF also does this while merely talking on a two way does not.

If this were true, merely changing the FM radio, adjusting the A/C would do the same thing. But they do not. That is because they are, in their own way, a SIMPLEX activity that does not overwhelm the mind's ability to cope.

I never SAID we have a "right" to drive a motor vehicle; you are reaching. But because cell phones and two way radios ARE similar, but different animals, they should operate under different rules. In fact, I am convinced they DO operate under different rules. FCC has ALWAYS had sole authority over the use of two way radio, and it is codified into Federal law. It is further codified in US Law by FCC Brief 91-36, filed on behalf of amateurs who were wrongly cited (and had their equipment seized) under onerous state "scanner laws". Amazingly, when people come to here to defend the states' potential actions, they seem to be so tied up IN the cell phone culture and their approval of nonsensical laws, they do not READ that Docket (which I have quoted ad infinitum, and I won't do it again). It has very clear statements in favor of mobile amateur radio, and I just do not see how anyone can interpret it any other way. States do NOT regulate amateur radio, its licensing, its privileges, its parameters. Because cell phones and TWR's operate completely differently, they should be handled differently, and the state cannot do that-especially if FCC has already said otherwise. No matter, We ARE going to find out just who is in charge of this issue: FCC or, yes, the NANNY STATE. Cell phones DO need more enforcement. Two way radio does not. So FIX the problem! Don't punish the innocent along with the guilty.

So go after the culprit! The culprit is the cell phone and its addictive, all-captivating operational dangers. It is NOT the two way radio. YES! "Thanks to the CELL PHONE"! YOU said it. THAT'S what's causing the problem.

We will know soon enough.

 

Not everyone is as good (or lucky) as you. I wonder how much risk of preventable damage/injury is acceptable. Of course, the down-side of permitting it would be the ham wouldn't have the convenience of operating while in motion.

 

And should the nanny state get their laws confirmed, what other unforeseen "laws" will they enact? Being that it IS FCC that governs amateur radio, CB and commercial two way, would they try banning our operations in toto? Towers, for example. Yes, we DO have PRB-1 for that, and FCC has already said that they WANT mobile amateur radio, would they STILL try something else? There IS 91-36. but I doubt the states really know that exists. Thankfully, it is also a moot question in some states because they have already exempted mobile amateur radio. Why shouldn't we try to get the other states on board with this?

 

Wow. Just... WOW (again).

 

You lost me there............................ It never hurts to ASK. What does amateur radio have to lose if we get an national exemption?

 

So why author at least two separate threads about it?

Clearly there are many who are concerned with distracted driving regardless of the cause. Equally clearly, any distracted driving is dangerous. Preventing or minimizing it should be encouraged or at least attempted, again regardless of the cause.

That anyone prioritize a hobby over that is shameful.

 

Better, what (potentially) do millions of non-ham drivers lose if we get "an" national exemption?

Here's one for ya. A younger brother was hit with Acute Multiple Sclerosis. He nearly died but, recovered a lot. Still, his strength and control of his limbs is permanently limited. He wanted to get another driver's license but, his neurologist asked him to take a basic test to show his level of capability. He failed, and the doctor wrote a letter to the state saying he was unable to safely operate a vehicle. The state will not let him retest; instead, he obtained a state ID card.

Apparently, to you, just holding a valid ham license automagically qualifies a person to simultaneously ragchew on a ham radio while operating a lethal vehicle.Wow. Just... WOW (again).

Exactly (emphasis added).

 

Good grief! You don't get it!

That's you, not all ops combined!!! There are millions of cellphone users on the phone everyday for years who have never caused an accident. Does that prove that it's safe???

Have you used that radio every time you've operated our car in 50 years??? How would you know if you caused someone else to have an adrenaline rush because of something you did while using that radio??? No problem just because you didn't cause a crash? And that also means that radio operation in general is just fine, just because of your experiences?

You said that radio operation (in general was implied) has never been a problem. You have NO way of knowing that!

You don't get it. I haven't said or implied that 2-way radios are THE problem, but that they are, and it can't be denied, another distraction for drivers when distracted driving, WHATEVER THE DISTRACTION, has become a deadly problem in this country.

I asked you a simple question: can you engage in a QSO and watch a movie at the same time without missing anything from either?

Simplex versus duplex has nothing to do with it! That's just modal differences. Do you talk at the same time that the person on the other end of a phone conversation is talking? Please, get real!

Let's see, you said "the operator listens to inflowing information, similar to listening to music on the FM radio". Really? Are you engaged in a conversation with what you're listening to on the radio, have to think about it in order to respond? If you're listening to the inflow of information, you are NOT FOCUSED ON DRIVING.

You can argue all that you want, but you change nothing.

I already said that I have no problem with 2-way mobile ops just because the numbers are so low, and statistically they're nothing compared to cellphone numbers. However, please don't be so naïve as to think they're not potentially the same problem. They would be every bit the same problem if their numbers were anything like the magnitude of cell phone use, and to deny that is ridiculous.