Texas HAMS Alert - SB 43 Pending in Texas Senate

But I am sure that we can all agree that the problem has been primarily the fault of cell phones and texting. Restricting the use of licensed two way radio will not now impact the issue of distracted driving, nor has it in the past. I am certainly all for restricting that which is CAUSING distracted driving. Again that device IS the cell phone, NOT the two way radio. Even the minor studies that have been done have shown that the two way radio has but a minimal impact on driving--about the same as switching on the FM broadcast radio, or adjusting the A/C. Using your philosophy, let's ban EVERYTHING!!! Let's ban VEHICLES! Let's ban LIVING!!! By all means, restrict those things that have by documented evidence, by anecdotal evidence, by personal experience causes loss of life. Let's all walk in lock step with the "gub'mint" controlling EVERYTHING we do even when we go poo! That's where such leads. Using things that seem "good" to enact ever more restrictive rules on our personal lives, one by one, we LOSE our FREEDOMS. Again, I use the old adage about putting a frog in warm water. It feels "good". The old tale claims that if you every so gradually turn up the heat, you can cook the frog to a turn before he realizes his goose--er, uh-FROG is ready for serving. So, yes, I am all in for restrictions on cell phones. I can see for myself that cell phones ARE dangerous because they have caused ME to swerve, caused ME to slow down, caused ME to sit still at a light. So I stay off my phone while driving. I have used mobile radio for 50+ years. Not ONCE did that use EVER impact my driving. I have only had very minor bump-ups in all those years, never causing a major accident or injury. None EVER happened while I was using my radio.

The state CAN restrict various aspects of driver behavior. However, SHOULD they become involved where said activity (operating a two way radio) has almost NO impact on driving?

"In the 70's most were DUI caused, now they are mostly DWD-Driving while Distracted." Here I refer back to one of your own sentences. In the 70's there were NO cell phones. There WERE a few common-carrier mobile phones that used a mobile operator to initiate calls. There was also a huge number of faddish CB radios installed in cars and trucks then. I lived during that time, and we never heard of "distracted driving". We knew of DRUNK DRIVING, we knew of CB radios. We NEVER HEARD of distracted driving especially in regard to two way radios. So now we have an acknowledged problem with distracted driving, and we want to punish that which DOESN'T have an impact. IOW, lets throw the baby IN the scalding hot bath water because that will cool it down. It won't do the baby a bit of good, but it *might* cool the water some.


There are many reasons to restrict cell phones and NONE to restrict LICENSED two way radio. One is FEDERAL law that approves and encourages same (See Brief 91-36), history, and the futility of such laws. Messing with two way radio will do doodly squat to decrease distracted driving. And it will have unintended consequences. I believe many hams, once restricted by some BUBBA state law, will then refuse to respond to emergencies. I dunno about YOU, but confronted with such a request and nanny state laws restricting amateur radio, I would not hesitate to tell 'em just how many hells they can go to!

 

Not happy situation but in a society more behaving like need a nanny what else? I hope ARRL can make your case and mine we are not problem. Sadly, they had to install speed laws because people sped and the DWD issue is now past a point that it cannot be ignored. Until people realize any thing that distracts at all a driver going 60+ is seconds from a fatal consequence.
I sent a letter to the local state rep and asked they reinstall section deleted as this was discriminatory application of a law to problems not directly at issue. I am mobile too and hands free but I actually turn off radio in traffic and aware. Cannot say that about many driving around me at my peril with their attention split.
I cleaned up many truck rv and car accidents in 70's from DWD. It is far more plentiful with phones, etc. and urban congestion.
Oh well let us hope we cooler heads prevail but DWD is now at a critical level.

 

Again, I've been thinking (uh oh!) about this part of the equation--what the state can, or cannot (should not) "regulate" in a moving vehicle. It would seem to me, that regulations should pertain to such activities that are clearly and potentially a danger to the operation of a vehicle. For example, a driver who takes his hands off the wheel and shaves, or puts on face powder, or lipstick, reads a book or 'paper. (And I have seen drivers doing just that). And, of course, using a cellphone to text, send messages, emails, tweet, bleep, or squeak. All of these things lead to driver inattention and take awareness away from driving and transfers it to that activity. So the question is this: Does the operation of an amateur, or two way, radio affect driving, either to ANY significant degree, OR to a point equal to that of these other extraneous activities within a vehicle? Taken at face value, if you wanted to, one could say that ANY thing other than staring straight ahead, with a death grip on the wheel is a distraction sufficient to warrant preventing all such [other] activities. Or one could find that the human mind IS capable of accepting a certain amount of distractions within the car. So WHICH ones? The fact is, we MUST be able to carry on several tasks, at least, minor ones, while one's attention is more focused on driving. Most of us can drive the car safely, shush the kids, prevent an item from falling off the seat (or know when to let it fall), AND we can operate an amateur radio without being unduly distracted. Seventy years of history proves this. One of the things we CANNOT do, is operate a cell phone, text, email, tweet, or put on our wig while going down the road. So, the thing to do is, explain to the authorities the differences in a two way radio and a cell phone and why the two have completely different affects on driving: the cell phone, a LOT, the two way radio, almost NONE. When we speak of regulating drivers' behaviors, we must realize that the behaviors that apply to the cell phone do not apply to the two way radio, beginning with duration. Cell phone users tend to remain "tied to" and engaged in an absorbing duplex conversation, often to the sacrifice of situational awareness. Often, the drivers, particularly young girls, will remain glued to their phone (or I-pad) even up to and thru starting their car. This in itself indicates an absorption in the phone, and neglect of driving the car. OTH, the two way radio's duration is less. By its very nature, and due to the simplex operation of it, the operator will encounter a "pause" in the activity while a transmission is RECEIVED. The operator doesn't have time to become ungulfed in the activity, and, indeed, due to that pause, he never gets a chance to become distracted!
The very nature of the radio just doesn't contribute to distraction in the same way a cell phone does.

Because of this, and because of the existing legal oversight of amateur radio by FCC, I believe states have no authority to restrict something that has almost no bearing on driving. If a driving behavior is dangerous, then, by all means, it should be restricted. But the "behavior" of operating a two way radio does not rise to the level of allowing states to intervene in a historically permitted , and licensed, operation of two way radio. In order to restrict licensed two way way and remove the traditional authority that amateurs have under their licenses, then it should be FCC that permits such restriction, NOT the states.

 

We have gone through this already in Germany. No big deal. Having a radio or cellphone in he car is in and of itself is not illegal. USING the radio while driving is like texting, working your email or talking on phone (without hands free capability) is illegal and subject to fine, unless it caused an accident, then you are screwed. It's called distracted driver.If you want to play with your phone, computer or radio in the car, do it while standing still. I am sick and tired of having to avoid drivers careening down the road at 50 or 60 miles an hour or trying to park their vehicles while they diddle with their devices - or themselves for that matter. If you drive, drive! Let someone else drive, or buy self-driving car in the future.

 

I don't think any court in Texas or any other state will support your line of reasoning. States do have the right and authority to regulate driving. Anything you do while driving that take your attention off the road and away from driving is per se a distraction. Having a hefty discussion with you front seat passsanger can also be a distraction. Looking down to adjust the A/C knob or someother knob is also a distraction. Picking the crumb of your sandwich that you dropped on the floorboard is a distraction and takes your eyes and your concentration away from the act of driving.

If you drink (alcohol), don't drive. If you want to play with your electronic devices in the car, don't do it while driving. Basta.

 

I always thought amateur radio was conceived and practiced as a hobby. Its purpose was and as far as I know is not to provide a network of national emergency communications. I am not networked and am not involved in emergency communications, as many of my fellow ops are not either.

If you are driving a vehicle, drive the vehicle and don't play with your devices or yourself along the way. Stop on the roadside or in a parking lot if you must do it.

 

At 60 miles per hour your vehicle travels one mile in the minute you are distracted, ie not paying attention to what is going on in traffic. Distraction is distraction regardless of whether it comes from an amateur radio (and what about a CB radio?), cellphone, tablet or laptop. If your eyes are not on the road and your attention is not focused on traffic, you are distracted and a danger to yourself, your passengers and everyone else. If you are honest with yourself, you will agree.

 

Excerpt from Texas application form: "Submit a copy of your Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Mobile Amateur Radio License with this application."

Since when does the FCC issue "mobile amateur radio licenses?"

 

It will not BE ultimately decided by a court in Texas. Two way radio in the United States is governed by Title 47, US Code of Regulations. The agency that is in control is the Federal Communications Commission. Its regulations have already historically, legally, and factually, decided what a licensed amateur (or two way) operator can do, and that includes mobile operation. This has been in force for almost 70 years. It even has precedent in the form of FCC Brief 91-36 that makes specific statements in support of and encouragement of mobile amateur operation. Contrary to your claim, some states have already agreed (apparently) that they would not wish to challenge FCC 's oversight of two way radio, and have already passed exemptions. Texas's law is pending and may, or may *not* include said exemption. California has such a "ban", but it seems to depend upon who you talk to at CHIPS whether it would be enforced.

I have a pending request for a Declaratory Ruling on file with Scott Stone, FCC Wireless Bureau to ask for a blanket Federal exemption and/or a declaration of FCC's traditional oversight over and above that of the states. After all, states don't "license" themselves; they, too, must apply for license from FCC, and like, amateurs and commercial, must obey the rules of their particular service. It is in this way, amateur radio is on an equal footing with the states where the use of a two way radio is concerned. I have already explained (many times) why a two way radio is not like a personal device, cell phone, texting device, or game. It simply does not have the same effect on driving as those devices. And to restrict two way radio dampens commerce, and lessens participation in emergency services, for many hams, such as I, would refuse to respond to call when the hippocrites write tickets one day, then ask for help the next. When H freezes over!!!

 

True, but where are the laws making it illegal to adjust the A/C knob or other similar electronic vehicle controls?

For example, how is adjusting one electronic control inside a vehicle any less of a distraction than adjusting another electronic control?

 

Especially the touch screen controls. My Jeep requires one button press on two screens just to change the heater air direction, and I must look st the screen because there is no tactile feedback. Just what I need while driving on a snowy road in traffic! If they had kept them as physical buttons I could do it by feel without looking, and faster too.

 

FCC Brief 91-36 discusses only having a radio installed in a vehicle. It does not address the operation of the radio in the vehicle while driving or standing still.

Common sense and consideration and respect for oneself, one's passengers and other traffic participants says keep distractions to an absolute minimum. Each and every distraction is a risk. Many times we are simply lucky that in the moment we take our eyes and concentration off he road that nothing bad happens. At 60 miles an hour your car travels a half a mile in 30 seconds, assuming it doesn't collide with an object or run off a cliff because the you were not paying attention. How many times have you missed an exit on the freeway because you were distracted in the moment? Talking on a radio or on a cellphone while driving is not mandatory, and there is no right to be able to do it.

Cellphone users have the option of using hands free devices, if they simply cannot wait until they park their vehicle to talk on the phone. Where are the hands free accessories for radio amateurs? That would lessen the risk and danger to oneself and others.

I am sick and tired of having to avoid collisions with drivers who insist on doing anything else in their vehicles except paying attention to their driving and traffic on the road. If you want to play with your toys have someone else drive or buy a self-driving car.

 

I would suggest that you interpretation of the law is incorrect, in regards to both the Federal v State issue, and the definition of "equally applied."

First thought came to mind was State and local restrictions on HAM radio antennas. Clearly, local law can be used to regulate a federally licensed activity.

 

WRONG! Read Paragraph 10. "We (FCC) believe that the strong FEDERAL interest in supporting the emergency services provided by amateurs cannot be fully accomplished unless amateurs are free to own and operate their amateur stations to the fullest extent provided by their licenses and are not unreasonably hampered in their ability to transport their radio transmitting stations across state and local boundaries for the purpose of transmitting AND receiving on authorized frequencies." Now, sir, I don't mean to be 'snarky", but English IS my native language. And as a native-born American this Brief tells me that that it is the intent of FCC and Congress itself that amateurs are to be FREE to operate their stations to the FULLEST EXTENT possible, and that includes MOBILE operation. It is also a fact that there has been NO evidence to prove that 1) amateur radio is the SAME as a cell phone, and 1) that it has the same effect. If there HAD been, it would have been shown during the CB craze of the 70's and 80's when thousands of CB sets were installed in vehicles. Next, it is FCC that determines what operations may be undertaken be they BASE or MOBILE. It is part of FCC's regulations. States may not issue regulations, restrictions, or attempt to supercede FCC's traditional oversight of two way radio, nor may it regulate interference--even to its own systems. IOW, state radio systems must be FCC-licensed as must amateur stations, and on that basis, they are equal under Federal law. They are issued licenses: the state is issued a license. Both must operate according to the regulations that pertain to their Service. Both are equal. And in regards to 91-36, it IS a matter of Public Record and is a usable precedent in future cases regarding restrictions upon the amateur service. Once a Federal agency expresses a clear INTENT in a court preceding, it not only applies narrowly to a single issue (in this Brief, the ticketing of amateurs for having sets that merely had the ability to scan), but when a broad statement of intent is put forth, it now can be applied to future issues!
The Brief then also means that MOBILE operation of amateur radios was INTENDED and ENCOURAGED in order for amateurs to carry out their emergency services mission.

We will find out when the Wireless Bureau is finished with this. I am counting on a favorable Ruling and a Federal exemption for amateur radio as well as other directly licensed services. This, as I pointed out to the Wireless Bureau, will serve as a blueprint and a map for states as they enact future distracted driving laws. It will remove confusion for the states AND amateurs as they travel thru the states that have distracted driving laws, especially those who attempt to meddle in Federal regulations. Perhaps, where you are, you are more accustomed to somebody regimenting everything you do! Americans aren't as pliable! That's why there's a battlefield not far from me! *(Kings Mountain, October, 1780)!

 

Antenna disputes are most often the result of private contract issues, not when it comes to operations.

Might I suggest that you stick to interpreting and abiding by the laws of your OWN country of residence rather than worrying about OURS!? Under OUR laws, it is US Federal law that gives licensed operators of whatever service the privileges, not "rights", to talk on a two way radio. The only reason these local laws are cropping up is, no one has actually addressed it on the Federal level, OR thru ignorance, local jurisdictions mistakenly think they CAN restrict the operation of two way radios. It WILL end up in court. They cannot, and, in fact, a couple of cities (Palm Desert, CA, I believe, was one) that attempted to enact local ordinances prohibiting the operation of amateur radios within their city limits). This was quickly shot down by FCC as such has already been ruled BY them that OPERATIONS of amateur radios is legal thru out the country (IOW, local jurisdictions may NOT restrict the presence, nor govern the level, of RF emissions anywhere in the USA. They must consult FCC. Period and end. Antennas are a property and contract matter.