SB61 in CT Needs your support.

The LAST thing we need is another expensive and wasteful government funded study to prove the obvious.

 

I was speaking of the multitude of cell phone users he don't pose a safety threat.. Most of them do not.. Just as most hams do not pose
a threat. It is my belief that the cell phonelegislationn is merely eyeCandyy to make our legislators look like they are doing something for the
people who put them in office. It serves no real purpose. If a driver is reckless or careless, he is just as likely to be held accountable..

However, if you are going to support laws or regulations to regulate cell phone use while driving, you need also to regulate ham radio
use. They are obviously as distracting as phones. Those that thik otherwise chose to because they have a vested interest.. They like
to operate mobile.. A bit selfish in my opinion. There are no statistics because none have been gathered. I dont recall reading of
any studies done about the safety of using a ham radio while driving. What I have rehystericalterical posts on forums like this
from hams who feartheirng thier "right" to drive and use their radios.. I read a lot of anecdotal "evidence" supporting ham exemptions.
I could drum up an equal amount of anecdotal evidence proving that ham mobiling is hazardous..

Lee
NI7I

 

Self-delusion must be a great place to live. At least recognize how difficult it is to be objective about yourself. Just because you apparently never created a dangerous situation (of which you were aware) previously doesn't equate to never doing so for the sole purpose of playing with an entertainment media such as ham radio. Frankly, and without intent of insult, it is people with your mentality that are the most dangerous.

 

I think laws that cannot be enforded are stupid.

Dont get me wrong, as a european normally i could not care less what bills pass in the states -and i probably should shut up now.

But the question happened to be thrown into a globally acecssible forum (dont feel offended by me beeing blunt)

Having said that, here in finland, literally everyone has a hand-with-cellphone stuck on their ear.
No matter if driving a caterpillar, an amubulance, a 40ton truck or just a normal car.... during that time their level of distraction is desasterous.

And i am a on-the-road-engineer, and by job bound to have a phone at the ready - seem to be the only one who has a proper hands-free-system
installed. And still, i hate it if someone enforces a meaningless chat on phone with me. I just cut short, and call back. Unfortunately, i am the only finn thinking that way.

In comparision: a ham radio or cb-radio - is mostly just another receiver, next to the one that gives you music.
And it becomes becomes rarely a transmitter. _usually_ the mike is on its hook. Am i right?

On the occasions a two-way QSO is ongoing, the hand with mike can still grab the steering wheel, or use the manual gear (still normality in europe)
this is in stark contrast with the normal phone users. Many accidents have been caused by phone and cigarettes (..falling between the legs, ouch)
but there is not even a study or statistic on accidents involving two-way-radios. (that would probably hit the cops hardest)

We do have the anti-distraction bill here in finland, as well as in germany. It has not changed a thing. The cops just dont see it, or they dont care.
They check if youre belted... and that is about it.


....that brings me back to my first sentence: laws need to be enforced, otherwise they just end up to be ballast at best forgotten, at worst used
to criminalize a whole bunch of people in an arbitrary manner. "Look, your lights not working... oh look this dude has a radio!... jail him"

73

 

http: //www. cga. ct. gov/ofa​

SB-61 AN ACT EXEMPTING AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS USING HAND-HELD RADIOS FROM THE PROHIBITION ON USING HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES AND MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES WHILE DRIVING.
OFA Fiscal Note
State Impact:
[TABLE]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="width: 217"]

Agency Affected​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 123"]

Fund-Effect​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 88"]

FY 13 $​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 88"]

FY 14 $​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 217"]Judicial Dept.
[/TD]
[TD="width: 123"]GF - Revenue Loss
[/TD]
[TD="width: 88"]

Less than $7,500​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 88"]

Less than $10,000​

[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Note: GF=General Fund Municipal Impact: None
Explanation This bill would result in annual revenue loss of less than $10,000 as a result of exempting amateur radio operators from the ban on using mobile devices while driving. Currently, the state collects approximately $2. 5 million in fines related to violations on the ban on using mobile devices while driving. However, it is assumed that the majority of these violations are from drivers using cell phones. The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future subject to inflation.

 

you answered so well

I REST my case. K5CO

 

Our spending spree,tax you to death governor is using this money to balance the budget.They think up all these new laws just to make MONEY period.

 

You are being sarcastic, right?? You really dont believe that this fellow offered an answer to anything do you??




you answered so well

I REST my case. K5CO

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
Originally Posted by KF7CG
SO!! You would also outlaw repeaters! They were and are there for mobile operators. No use except when pulled off, can't do that safely on many major roads. Check the illegal stopping ordinances. No use for HR in car, no HR in car, no HR in car no need for repaeaters. NO REPEATERS MAJOR JUSTIFICATION FOR 2 METER BAND. Add 70 CM as well.

If HR is to be banned in automobiles so should be entertainment devices, GPS units and any thing else that is not directly associated with driving. All can distract and distraction is distraction.

KF7CG



​

​

 

I'm not talking about anecdotal evidence - I'm asking for official stats - there are official stats on cell phones - its not anecdotal - there are no stats on Ham related accidents because for over 40 years there hasn't been a problem with them. If you can find some, put them up here then. You don't make laws against something you "Think" is a problem - you make a law against something that IS a problem. Again for over 40 years Hams have been exempted because there HAS BEEN NO OFFICIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY ANYONE TO PROVE they shouldn't be. Nor the other radio services including pilots and mariners. We don't NEED to regulate anything unless there is a valid evidence based reason to regulate it. Show me some real statistics proving beyond a doubt that Ham Operators are a safety threat when operating mobile and we'll have a basis for discussion. Its time we started regulating things because of a logical real defined need to regulate - not just someones opinion or fear - and stopped regulating things we don't need to regulate until the data becomes so outstanding that there's a proven qualified need.

 

Actually there is a big difference between half-duplex and full-duplex conversation with an individual outside of the vehicle. Research has shown the half-duplex is similar to listening to a broadcast and the conversation is paced by the driver plus the driver doesn't get lost in the conversation as one does in a phone call.
another interesting thread:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.ph...xemption-To-Proposed-IL-Distracted-Driver-Law

 

There are no statistics on ham radio related distracted driving induced accidents because there would be no statistical validity with such a small group of people. Hams are a trivial percentage of drivers yet those with radios clearly have the potential for being distracted and at a rate FAR greater than simply talking on the phone . We don't need statistics or government studies to tell us the obvious.

It's insulting to common sensibility that someone would perceive a person operating a radio couldn't be distracted. When one considers there no socially redeeming value to that radio other than entertainment, this debate becomes ludicrous.

 

You cant be that naive.. There are a kajillion laws writen every year based on hot air.. That's what poloticians do.. If you think that laws regulating cell phone use are
needed, I guess I would count you among those who believe that it is our governments job to protect us.. It is most definitely not.. A "government study" is not needed
to tell me the obvious. I suppose that you do. That operating a mobile radio is every bit as "distracting" as a cell phone is obvious to all except those too self absorbed
to see it. It doesnt seem that you read the post.. The anecdotal evidence I referred to was that evidence most hams present to validate the "safety" of operating mobile.
There have been no studies that I am aware of to suport that point of view.

My view is that there really is no need to regulate either.. Not cell phone usage nor amateur radio usage .. We already have regulations against careless or reckless driving
that cover those issues nicely.. However, if you are going to support one, you need to suport both.. They are equally "distracting".. Personally, I dont use my radio or
my cell phone while driving.. I either do so from the passenger seat or I pull over.. I guess that you will be the one to decide what a "proven qualified need " is. I, for one
dont recognize your qualificatiolns.

NI7I

 

I have heard this from many hams. It is conjecture and supposition.. I believe this rhetoric comes from the ARRL staff.. It just doesnt wash..

NI7I

 

just one more thing "they" want to take way from us ....

Jay KB8O

 

Would you then agree that drinking a coke or coffee, eating a french fry, adjusting the mirror or FM receiver, yelling at kids in the back seat, talking to passengers, adjusting a GPS, or smoking a cigarette should be equally banned? Are any of these things really necessary? I mean if we want to ban ALL things that are potential distractions, there are lots of things that can happen, and have happened, in a car.

The point is, HR operation is only illegal if they make it illegal. The CT law does not make HR operations illegal, even if this exemption is NOT passed. Exempting something that is already legal will make no difference, from a legal standpoint. It may prevent someone who is suspected of using a phone, when they are actually using a HR, avoid a ticket, and rightfully so, since HR operations have never been subject to this law, and are not currently subject to the law.

I don't know how much clearer this can be. Read the definitions yourself, and see how HR could even be considered a part of this current law. This exemption just further clarifies the legal standing of HR operators, only while operating HR equipment.

Joe