SB61 in CT Needs your support.

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KA1RLA, Mar 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-innov
ad: l-Waters
ad: L-rfparts
ad: Subscribe
ad: l-rl
ad: l-gcopper
  1. KA1RLA

    KA1RLA Ham Member QRZ Page

  2. AE1S

    AE1S Ham Member QRZ Page

    So hams are a special breed with super-human abilities and they don't get distracted, talking on the radio, scanning the band or trying to scan a repeater for PL tone while driving? Please help me understand how having a Ham Radio License makes you less prone to distraction while driving. All these radios with multiple levels of menus or HTs with tiny displays and controls are more user-friendly than a cell phone? You are still using one hand to hold the mike, you are still talking and you are still trying to do more things than just driving. IMHO the cell phones are actually safer in that regard - no VFO knob to spin, no switching of pre-amp, attenuator or changing filters, noise-blankers, DSP and what not... How about the guys sending and receiving CW while diving and keeping a log on top of that? Even operating in the "channelized" repeater world there are plenty of distraction while using a HT. I don’t remember any part of the preparation for the license exam to give you an edge or train you for driving while distracted - you can still as easily kill yourself or god forbid somebody else. If there is a true emergency situation, probably the cops are going to be too busy to deal with a guy using a hand mic anyway! 99% of the hams who get busted for using radio while driving are not doing anything for the public safety at the moment - most probably rag-chewing on the local repeater about their recent triple-bypass surgery.
    I really dont see any grounds for a special exception from a law, intended to keep everybody safe on the road!
     
  3. K0RGR

    K0RGR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There have been 2 way radios in cars since the 1930's, with millions of users, and there has never been any evidence that they were a significant factor in causing accidents. We've all seen idiots on the road with cellphones, so the idea of outlawing their use while driving is generally considered a good idea, and I agree with it. But why should we outlaw something that is useful, and that many actually believe contributes to added safety, when there is no evidence that it's harmful?
     
  4. KA1MDA

    KA1MDA Ham Member QRZ Page

    The trend for law makers to quickly pass laws banning specific actions as a means of maximizing their political capital after every well publicized accident is disturbing. Does that mean drivers may interpret activities not specifically banned in the law as allowed? I see people driving down the interstate at 70+ MPH reading newspapers, balancing their checkbooks, and writing letters/greeting cards (using the steering wheel airbag cover as a desk) on a daily basis. Do we need to draft specific legislation banning those activities? Most of these drivers are also oblivious to the fasten seatbelt warning light (which is easily visible from my vehicle), proving they really don't care what is/is not allowed under existing laws.

    I contend that drivers who cause these distracted driving accidents would have had the same type of accident sooner or later even without the cell phone, as they would have found something else to distract themselves with. Guess it's time to remove the mobile rig from the vehicle and install a laptop so I can run quicken to balance my checking account while hurtling down the interstate- at least that way I won't have a microphone to distract me, and I'll remain legal.

    Tom, KA1MDA
     
  5. AE1S

    AE1S Ham Member QRZ Page

    The point is that there is no fundamental difference between using a cell phone and two-way radio - just the small technical detail of full-duplex vs. half-duplex (and with the VOX feature engaged on the two-way radio, even this difference becomes more transparent). If ham operators think they are special and should be excluded from a blanket law (with the general intention to improve traffic safety), what will stop the next special-interest group to seek such provision - and before you know it - truck drivers, hunters, delivery guys, whackers, you-name-it, will all feel special and worthy of such exception. It is not fair to Joe Shmoe with a cell phone to be deemed more dangerous on the road than the guy who got a FCC license to certain bands of the radio-frequency spectrum (something that has nothing to do with trafic safety btw). What about the ppl who actually paid a fee for GMRS license? They also could claim the right to be excluded. I think if the law does not differentiate between cell phones and two-way radios then it should be valid for all but the public-safety and emergency services. (the fact that hams volunteer and train to aid these services does not make them official part of it). Btw there are whackers out there with better equipped vehicles and CB radios and no FCC license than most of the ham operarators - should they also be granted such exception just because they like to ride under an antenna?
     
  6. K1ZJH

    K1ZJH Ham Member QRZ Page

    I believe there is a long standing law on the books in CT that gives hams an exemption. Unless that law was repealed, it still stands.
     
  7. K1ZJH

    K1ZJH Ham Member QRZ Page

    You can't legislate stupid. I simply use my mike when driving, and drop it when I need to pay more attention to driving.
    No playing with VFOs, DSP, or other silly nonsense. If people weren't busy texting and driving, then this ban never would
    have happened. You might as well ban talking while driving, or listening to the AM/FM radio, or even, gasp!, playing CDs
    while the car is in motion. Where do you choose to stop the silliness?
     
  8. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't know if there is any law exempting HR ops, but the current law clearly does not include HR under the definitions of "mobile telephone" or "mobile electronic device":

    It's probably a good thing to modify the law to clearly state that HR ops are not part of this law, even though it is clear to me that they were never included, judging by the definitions given.

    Joe
     
  9. W2JRL

    W2JRL XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    They want to stop the truckers from using the CB?
     
  10. K1VI

    K1VI Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Wow, there's a callsign from my distant past - hello John. Yes, we lost that exemption about 5 years ago, and appears to be showing up in tickets issued.
    ... De Mike, K1VI, ex-Wa1IDU (MTARA early 1970's)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: Radworld-1