North Carolina is working on a "Distracted Driving" Bill

The states regulate what can/cannot (and what must & must not) be done while operating a lethal vehicle on roads within their borders. No punishment is involved... unless someone (ham or not) breaks the law.

 

Yes. IF there IS an activity that has been shown to materially affect one's driving. In the case of driving impaired, (under influence of drugs, alcohol, driving erratically, speeding)--Anything that can be SHOWN to impair is certainly within the purvey of the states. No one thus far, officially or otherwise, has shown that the use of a two way radio is any more distracting than the usually mundane tasks we take for granted (FM radio, window controls, seat controls-little tasks we do every day in the operation of our vehicles). One of the issues I am asking for Ruling is, given that amateur radio, CB, commercial two way radio is absolutely under Federal law, and given that such is controlled solely by FCC, how can the states come along and "lump" two way radio in with cell phone laws, and, in effect, regulate it? This supercedes existing Federal laws and attempts to annul the Rules that govern radio operations. Yes, states CAN regulate "distracted driving". BUT! IS the mere use of a microphone "distracting"? When I bring up FCC Docket 91-36, I notice that no one, not even YOU, rebuts it. It says what it says. (FCC, circa 1991-93: [edit] "

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)

It actually says more than that with strong words about MOBILE amateur radio. This is what I would take into Federal court IF I were ticketed by some fat-bellied cop, or harassed and told "you gotta get rid of that 'ere radio". It is a FEDERAL LAW and as it exists now, I have the licensed privilege to operate my radio under Title 47, Part 97, US Code. And THAT includes mobile until the Federal law changes. Some states, thanks to alert amateurs, and ARRL (of which I am not yet a member), have already exempted amateur radio from these laws. Delaware, for one, enacted a law several years ago that would have banned mobile amateur radio altogether. I saw the original Bill as written. It was later changed due efforts of amateurs, local and otherwise. So obviously there already is momentum here.
I am standing, on what I believe to be, solid legal ground, and I won't give it up until the last "shot" (fig.) is fired! One thing you can surmise here from all this verbiage. I am NO "nanny state'r"! Not for restricting something just because. "Live Free (f ight), or DIE"!

 

^ ^ ^ Even MORE verbosity that is just plain wrong. ^ ^ ^

I agree... it's no more distracting. But, is it LESS distracting and if so, how much distraction is OK? And, is everyone equal when it comes to walking and chewing gum (driving a lethal vehicle and operating a ham radio)? I think I'd rather not find out the hard way.

 

Actually,...........every one IS equal, the state establishes the licensing requirements, standards, and the testing thereof, by issuing the license.

 

For driving. But they do NOT regulate two way radio. IMHO, under the law as I now read it, states cannot now, after 70 years of the Federal Government's aggressive approval of mobile radio, come in and ticket you for doing what we've been doing for all those 70 years without proof that that activity affects driving to any significant degree. They have no proof it does, the "nanny state'ers" who offfer only opinions, digs and postulations here have no proof, either. AND they try to ignore what FCC itself has said about its approval of mobile amateur radio. Notice how no one responds to the FCC's own words about how THEY feel about it? Bring up 91-36? Silence on their part!

 

But, they regulate the safe operation of a lethal vehicle... and that includes what the driver is allowed/required to do (and not do) while operating that lethal vehicle. IOW, ragchewing takes a back seat.

[SARCASM]
Then, since the states test and license drivers, maybe those drivers should be allowed to simultaneously operate ham radios while operating their lethal automobiles. And, because they're already tested & licensed to operate the vehicle (by itself) safely, let's NOT test/qualify them to ensure they can simultaneously safely operate the radio. That makes prefect sense.
[/SARCASM]

 

I don't know about you but I know where my mouth is and my mic and don't have to take my eyes of the road or my surroundings to key a mic. I would like to know if you can produce numbers on accidents caused by ham operators using the radio and being involved in an accident.

 

What about your grey matter? The notion of "multitasking" is a myth.

 

That's what I have been saying all along. The concentration, if you will, that it takes to operate a two way radio as opposed to a cell phone is miniscule compared to that phone. IF a two way radio were AS distracting as a 'phone it would be correctly actionable. As is, it is about a distracting as changing the A/C. So if what the "nanny state'ers" say were true (and its NOT), then we'd have to also ban A/C's, radios, power seats, power windows......................hell, we'd have to ban DRIVING! The "nanny state'ers" can't produce any statistics to support the idea that two way radios are equally as distracting as a cell phone. Why? Because they don't exist: that's why! There's never been a NEED to produce them. 'Cuz such accidents have not happened enough to even cause a "ripple on the radar", so to speak. Ergo, its NOT a problem!

Perhaps I've misinterpreted your "grey matter" remark, but it comes off to me as an insult. It also goes to the reply to KB0YYO. When a person defends an indefensible premise, and ultimately runs out of viable ammo. they respond with such as you did to YYO. While you and I obviously disagree, the difference here is, I, as any "defendant" in a court case, believe I am standing on solid legal ground. I apologize beforehand if I have misinterpreted your remark. I cannot help notice that you completely ignore my references to FCC's Brief 91-36 and seem to refuse to respond to back to it. IMHO, I believe I am, as you, naturally, are able to read English. When something (a sign, a radio transmission, a road worker, transmits to me by whatever means, instructions, directions, rules, information it is up to me to interpret it accurately and act accordingly. Brief 91-36 tells me that FCC believes that amateurs cannot fulfill their emergency services role as intended by Congress and the Commission if they are hampered in their ability to transport their mobile radios across state lines and to transmit on authorized frequencies. And it goes further to lend full support to mobile amateur radio. To have states abrogate, supercede, go against this Federal approval goes completely against Congress' intent and purpose in this Brief.

When a sign says "STOP", I STOP! When it says , "No Left Turn", I don't turn Left. It is a logical instruction that gives me information upon which I can make logical conclusions and actions. When FCC tells me that I can do certain things under the terms of my license, I must take that to heart and follow those Rules. I can do no other. So 91-36 is documented evidence to support my position, and this is what I would take into court to prove my case that while states DO have authority to grant or deny the privilege of driving safely, they do NOT have authority to restrict Part 97, US Code and FCC Rules as written. That's because the use of a two way radio has, and cannot be, shown to impair driving in more than a microscopic way.

And while you may think me an "idiot", or whatever "grey matter" you believe is lacking, I will not back down when I believe I am right!
States do NOT regulate two way radio. Its before the Wireless Bureau, and we will see! Keep your corkscrew ready for the celebration--whichever way it goes!

 

Read it again. In regard to control of a lethal vehicle, the various body parts (hand, feet, etc) are only part of the equation. The part that is supposed to control them is brain (grey matter). If it is distracted, the body parts can do nothing. IOW...
Q: What happens with its peripherals when a computer crashes?
A: Nothing. The human body and brain is similar.

 

I don't believe having my ham license gave me super powers. I'll just stick to keeping my eyes on the road and do radio when I'm parked.

 

Don't know about you but I'm hanging up my mic and reverting to shaking my fist and cursing out crazy drivers who are texting, reading the newspaper, putting on makeup, eating three course meals, and the like.

 

Now THAT'S the "ticket"!

That's fine. There's no "super powers" involved in the operation of a two way radio. It is the cell phone with its all-encompassing, duplex nature that goes beyond the mind's ability to accomplish multiple tasks at the same time. Because the two way radio only transmits and receives info in ONE direction at a time, it does not, and never has, become an overpowering task. It is for that reason that we never heard of "distracted driving" in reference to two way radio prior to the cell phone. The issue did not exist because cell phones had not been invented yet. Only when the cell phone came along did we hear of driving distracted. But now that people are absolutely, and almost physically attached to their cell phones, they have literally changed our entire lifestyles--and for the WORST. We don't want to admit what the REAL problem IS, so IF that physical attachment is threatened in some way, or it is found that our own pet device may be restricted, then we feel that others (and all others regardless) must share in the blame--even tho there is NO evidence to support their position. OH! Let's just ban it even in light of that lack of proof. The two way radio does not share in this blame.

If you don't want to operate mobile, that's fine. I, too, believe it or not, am not on the radio all that much, either. I am also on a cell phone even LESS. I have an antiquated(?) flip phone. That rarely rings! I don't bleep, blog, squeak, squawk, or surf while mobile. *Most* of my radio is business, mildly business, some pleasure (ham), some volunteer comms. I do not want the state telling me I cannot use my radio when and where I choose. I don't like social media, and any conversations are short (business, convenience, or personal --doctors, dentist, etc). When the phone rings, simply flip it on, answer, keep it short, and hang up. I call out while stopped.

There are also some other quite valid reasons why I don't want this. Interference with and delays to quite legal and needed traffic, conflict with Federal authorizations, confusion as to any different state interpretations of their laws, and enforcement/conflict with already standing FCC regulations.

Those that don't do mobile radio, don't. Those who DO should be allowed to do so until such time as it is proven that this activity, in and of itself, causes "distracted driving"....and ONLY in cooperation with and permission of FCC.

 

When I wanted to ride a motorcycle, I was required to demonstrate I could safely handle the basics, and my state gave me an endorsement.

Q: Where in the ham radio tests is there anything about safely ragchewing on a 2-way radio while in motion in a lethal vehicle?
Q: Where in the state driving tests is there anything about safely ragchewing on a 2-way radio while in motion in a lethal vehicle?
A: Nowhere. Some people extrapolate to believe that, because we have ham licenses and lethal vehicle operator licenses, we can safely do both simultaneously. I'm sure some can but, the problem is some CAN'T. The so-called "nanny" states need to be the ones who decide .

 

I agree 100% with post #133. Very well said, Jerry. Texting while driving is probably the biggest problem, but ANYTHING that takes your eyes off of the road is an issue. Operating a 2-way radio doesn't require the driver to be looking at small text on a tiny screen.