UH OH! North Carolina proposes to add a more restrictive cell phone law

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by K4KWH, Feb 24, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
  1. WJ0TX

    WJ0TX Ham Member QRZ Page

    HEY! I didn’t get this pot belly until AFTER my retirement.

    *goes back to working on an old case (of Pearl®️)*
     
  2. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    So, if you were a policeman (which is easy to infer from your comment), thank you for your service.
    I am wondering how many crashes did you witness during your service attributed to two way radio?
     
  3. WJ0TX

    WJ0TX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Zero (although I was on my police two way when I was broadsided by a guy that thought crossing five lanes of traffic at rush hour was a great idea. My choice of verbiage on the air at that time is still a source of comedic fodder).

    However, the directly attributed to cell phone use accidents were also zero, because it’s a self reported item. “What happened?” “Well, that car wasn’t there when I looked in my mirror!”
     
  4. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Then the numbers of users, the duration of exposure, numbers of TIMES the device is used should be counted in whatever ratio is used to assess the EFFECTS of use by 2-way users versus cell phone users. What is the OVERALL EFFECT of each device on driving taken as separate uses/devices? To assume that a 2-way radio has an EQUAL AFFECT on driving that a device that is in use, maybe..........thousands of times a day is unrealistic and unfair. IOW, if .02% of us have/use mobile radio, then because the 2-way operates differently and already has way less an impact on driving, then that .02% would make it even LESS! Therefore it is not "specious"; it further strengthens my/our argument that amateur radio is NOT a culprit in "distracted driving", and the LACK of evidence/incidents caused by 2-way radio , itself, a clear indication that the problem is WITH the CELL PHONE. Don't punish the baby because the bath water is hot: "it" (2-way radio) does not need to be scalded!
     
  5. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Find some that are a direct result of the use of a 2-way radio, and I'll concede!
     
  6. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    all that tells us is that distracted driving caused by ham radio is of a lesser magnitude than from cell phones as an example.

    You really need to come up with better 'stuff'
     
  7. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    I will stand on what I have both in forums and in court if it comes to it. It is the CELL PHONE that has brought this issue to the fore. It is the massive use of cell phones that is the cause for news stories about people being killed by inattention, by texting, emailing while driving. The concept of, "Well, lots are being injured by cell phones and electronic consumer devices, so lets just punish all of them. Yeah, let's just pass more and more silly, non-effective laws that do NOTHING to cure the problem. It is the same damn thing as arresting BYSTANDERS because someone was having an argument, pulled out a gun, and shot some dude in the foot! So let's arrest everybody that had nothing to do with the incident just because they were there! Everybody standing there might haul off and smack someone he didn't like! So let's arrest EVERYBODY to prevent somebody from being smacked! Such would be the logic of those of the "shepherd-sheep" ilk.
    Bluntly, such would be bumping its head on the moronic, supremely, sublimely absurd. So what to do? Really. In the absence of real data that proves 2-way radio's culpability in distracted driving, it should not be "punished" until such time sufficient evidence is found that shows that the 2-way radio is having a negative affect on driving. Meantime, a Federal exemption should be placed by FCC (1 re-asserting its tradition oversight of all communications, including mobile amateur radio. 2) FCC should cite 91-36 as a standing position paper on its (and Congress') approval and encouragement of mobile 2-way radio and its use. 3) Any state then should have to come TO FCC for any adjustments, changes, regulation of amateur radio, and such changes to be coordinated and approved BY FCC.

    This does several things. First of all, it provides an overall, uniform exemption for licensed radio services, and prevents states from enacting arbitrary laws detrimental to amateur radio. It then relieves licensed amateurs (and other licensed services) from possible unwarranted tickets as they cross from one state to another. It then keeps amateurs from refusing to answer the call for emergency assistance during disasters due to hypocritical, ticket-generating laws that are really there for "revenue enhancing" schemes instead of saving lives. (California is one that has overstepped FCC's regulatory authority, and, I, for one, would not lift a finger to help 'em under those circumstances; their forests can burn, their trucks can roll off into a lake and I will not use my radio to call for help--California law says they will ticket me if I do!).

    Better "stuff"? Well, if .02% doesn't tell us how little impact amateur radio presents a danger to driving, nothing will impact the stone of
    intractability. I AM basing it on available DATA which I have searched and found not even a microscopic speck that finds amateur radio "guilty". And THAT is what I would take into court if I am ever ticketed for exercising my legally authorized license and other non-FCC authorizations!
     
    N8OHU and KB1PA like this.
  8. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    You keep saying this but have nothing but some sort of self righteous sounding intuition to back it up. The cacophony of indignation coming out of Lakewood Ranch rings hollow. My guess is you would have more (by a massive magnitude) instances of "trained" personnel causing accidents by use of two way radio than hams mainly because of the numbers as well as the nature of running code 3. But, you know all that and what you're selling tries to sound better. I really want to believe you, but I can't just because you say so. You need third party corroboration to get my vote.

    Until you can produce tangible facts and legitimate statistics Don, I will not give your hunches any more credibility. In fact, I think it's time for me to take the exit and say 73.
    exit 73.jpeg
     
  9. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    To review, what I said is that there are far less hams who drive than the general population who have cell phones to distract from driving making any statistical comparison ludicrous. That you think my opinion based on that fact is “self righteous is telling.

    But, yes, your tacit personal attack does sound like a good place to end.
     
  10. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    The fact you take it as a personal attack is telling as well. Enjoy your position on the list with the others.
     

Share This Page

ad: hrd-2