California AB-1785 signed - Bans Ham Radio Usage in Vehicle

84% of the membership of Media Statisticians of America disagree.

 

And 4 out of 3 people have difficulty with fractions.

Steve
KV6O

 

I should expect to be pulled over any time now. They dont have to see me talking on the mic. Any car with THAT many antennas (including a LONGWIRE for HF AM) must mean I am yakking all the way! Most of the time, I just listen to the dirty repeater

 

Carl or Warrant,

I might be a short time HAM... but seeing that I seek training, I work the bands, I attempt to make my experience and that of others better with every spin of the knob.... it shows that you don't know much about me. I am a Navy E6, [ thanks for your service!] I am a LEO [18yrs] for the largest agency west of the mississippi. I can attest to the level of professionalism for the HAMs in my area. I have worked with them, alongside them, and mentored some. I can tell you they are trained and constantly seeking experience. For you to say I don't understand you... you are right, I don't know you. But you don't know me.... Or things in general... I am a skeptic until proven otherwise. I have been proven otherwise.

I am a let's fix it guy.... So I will continue to work at that. This stupid vehicle code section can only be enforced when it is witnessed by a LEO. You can't be cited for an infraction after the fact. I'll be extremely interested when we see a fatal T/C or a collision where the factors are... Radio being operated in the vehicle....

I can tell you that I and most of the hams I know articulate their way out of petty citations for said infractions. The key is to go to court and get the ruling on the books.... not just try and talk a cop out of the ticket on scene....

 

In relation to the population at the time, CB radios suddenly became wildly popular and in use by great numbers of otherwise untrained operators. But "distracted driving" did not even blip on the radar. Why? Because it was not then, nor is it now, an issue that has any but a microscopic impact on driving. That is due to the differences in the NATURE, and the USES of a two way radio and a cellphone. That is, while they are both "two way" radios, one is SIMPLEX; the other is DUPLEX. And this difference is important, as it applies directly to the USE to which they are put. The other element is, relating to the last sentence above in your comment, TIME. The SIMPLEX nature of the two way radio allows one to LISTEN to information incoming, and respond to it at a later time. This ONE WAY flow of info is absorbed and reacted to the same way one would listen to the news on the car radio. No one, so far, has given proof that listening to incoming info, in and of itself, causes any more distraction that other, even necessary, actions involved in driving the car. Likewise, when a driver decides to respond to this info, or inquiry, that has just come over his two way. he can do so with very little impact on driving. Holding a mike and speaking into it does not necessarily take away one's eyes from the road.

The cellphone is different in that its DUPLEX nature FORCES the operator to involve himself in the conversation RIGHT NOW. The SOCIAL nature of the cellphone takes advantage of humans' need to be involved with people as much as possible, and it demands that one be immersed in what is now an INSTANT, real-time activity, and also demands an instant response. This means that one cannot truly devote ENOUGH time to driving the vehicle because
he must divert his attention to pushing buttons, sliding fingers across screens, looking down to dial numbers, or find "Insta-dial", or "My friends" on his phone menu. Thus, TIME. The amount of TIME of exposure to the instant demand of the cellphone vs, the LACK of same with the two way radio. For one thing, the two way radio's buttons are not immersed in the virtual screens of computers and cellphones, the which sometimes move around depending on when they were last used.
I, and most radio ops of course, can turn on the radio without looking, and select a channel the same way, again, without looking DOWN into the vehicle compartment for it. Often the phone *may* be in your pocket, laying on the seat, in one's purse----could be anywhere. Thus, your last sentence is revealing as to why the two way radio has almost NO impact on "distracted driving". Simply put, it presents a very real reason as to why the cellphone should be regulated and the two way radio should not. Again, TIME OF EXPOSURE, and the amount of TIME that it takes away from driving the car. The TWR takes a miniscule amount of time while the on-going conversation totally involving the driver takes a lot MORE time, exposing the occupants to danger while the very mechanics of the installed two way radio does not. You may NEVER see someone using a mike, and when you DID, was he SWERVING in his lane? Was he driving slower than the prevailing traffic? Was he "shying" other vehicles out of their lane? Was he failing to start up at the light? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? Likely, you never saw THAT either with a two way radio user! But I am sure that we all can relate to all of those symptoms where someone did ALL those things while they had a cellphone stuck up his............................I mean, IN HIS EAR!

IF we were to "regulate" the two way radio "out of mobile existence", because the impact of THIS particular activity is so LOW, then you'd have to ban AM/FM car radios, A/C's with adjustable controls, heaters, power windows, power seats, or seats that adjust AT ALL because all of them *can*(?) cause "distracted driving". While we are at it, let's ban "Responsibility for one's actions", too. This is part and parcel of one segment's political agenda, too. That is, We as a people have not the ability nor the sense, to be RESPONSIBLE, and beeg GUB'MINT must do this for us. I don't want to live in such a place; its not what our ancestors fought for. IOW, I DON'T WANT YER *&^$%# blankety-blank "help". Get the (censored) &%$#@&%* H outta my life and leave me alone!!! Ya's might not like the reaction!!!! Nope. I won't ever have self-driving cars. I don't even like "Radar Cruise Control"!

I acknowledge that cellphones because of their DUPLEX nature, their SOCIAL impact, the huge numbers of their use, cause problems and should be curtailed. THEIR impact on driving is obvious! The two way radio in a mobile environment has huge POSITIVE impact on emergency operations, health, security, and commerce with little impact on driving itself. Punish that which is responsible, not that which is innocent.

 

Citation needed. Do you have access to the studies that were done?

As popular as CB was at the time, it was still NOWHERE NEAR the number of cellphone users. Not even close... ( I was there, and a witness ) I bet not even 10% of cars had CB installed. Today, damn near EVERY car has a cellphone in it.

Nor was the traffic load 40-50 years ago nearly as high as it is now.

Lots of factors involved.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that mobile radio operation is AS distracting as using a cellphone, just that it IS a distraction. Anything that removes attention from a task at hand is a distraction. Is it, or can it be distracting enough to cause a problem? I think so, given the right conditions.

I get that you're certainly passionate in your opinions though, and apparently they are cast in concrete. Therefore, have at it, I've said my piece. "Say something once, why say it again?"

 

Their logic is obviously quite different from mine. If there is no apparent problem, or a problem is of such a minute impact, then why would there BE a statistic? "Where there is no smoke, there is not likely a fire". I know a building can smolder for quite sometime before it catches into a visible fire, but if there is no evidence of a fire (i.e. smoke, smell, odors of a suspicious nature), one wouldn't react to it. There's a building there. Its been there since 1889. It's not doing anything but standing there. Looks normal. Nuttin' goin' on. So would you go into the building for FEAR there's a fire, ordinarily that is, or would you pass by just like ya did a hundred other times? Or do you suffer from paranoia and regularly go in because you think there might a fire? Of course not! There's no reason to do so, other than a routine inspection (if that were your job). Now, the building one day DOES catch fire, and you happen to see smoke. So you call for help.
There is a REASON to ACT.

Now in the case of regulating mobile radio, the impact on driving has always been small due to a number of factors. One is numbers of users. 2) what the device is used for. 3) The method used to operate it [duplex]. 4) Time/duration of exposure to danger. In each case the two way radio has but a minute impact. And, thus, no REASON for "statistics" to exist. No problem, no attention. No smoke, no fire. One does not normally compile statistics on anything unless there is a problem. The problem now is CELLPHONES, so now stupid people who know sh** from shinola about the issue want to lump CB radio, commercial radio, amateur radio in with that which IS causing trouble. Knowing no better, these stupes go, "OH! Well, we better stop using ANY kind of electronics in a car, and that will solve the problem." There's where such "statistics" come from; from a problem and it also causes a punishment for that which is innocent.

 

See the above post! There were no "studies" because there was no problem created by the large numbers of CB's installed in vehicles. Would you summarily deny that CB was not wildly popular circa 1974-1980, statistics or not? In that era, there were "car phones" in use prior to the cellphone. They worked differently from present-day cells. They worked thru a mobile operator, used a dial tone, and other aspects of a true phone. But they were STILL a simplex-semi duplex device, and it gave a pause time where one could respond back in time. Some were full duplex, some were simplex, and you still had to say "Over" when done. Some even had noticable "squelch tails"---SQUAWKKKKKKKKK! Even THAT didn't cause alarm. And then comes the cellphone. And a problem began to surface. It is a problem related to, and ONLY to, the CELLPHONE. Not the two way radio. Passionate? About my personal freedoms I watch being chipped away piece by tiny piece year by year............. YES! I will NOT be "punished" for a "crime" I did not, have not committed! I will not stand by for a bunch of do-gooder, snotnosed little ignorant b***rds to punish ME for someone else's lack of responsibility!

And I, too, have said enough! When this comes to NC (and I am sure it will) I will vigorously be shouting to and at my legislators about
this unfair punishment. The line in the sand will have been drawn!

 

No, of course not. I even had one in my car at the time.

There were WAY WAY WAY less CBers on the road then, than there are cellphone users today.

I suspect that if CB or mobile ham ops are ever at the level that cellphone is today, you would see the same distracted driving statistics. That's all...

Oh... and yes, Bob G did in fact drive into a ditch while he was fiddling with his CB radio.

So there's at least one statistic, and there would have been more had CB (or ham mobile) gotten to the point that cellphone is today, because it WOULD HAVE come up on the radar, and some bureaucrat WOULD HAVE commissioned a study...

It seems that your argument is only that because there are so few mobile hams that alone is the reason that it's not a problem.

 

Don't forget, there are three kinds of people out there: those who can count, and those who can't.

 

I don't have the link handy, but if you search back in some of my older posts, I relayed a link to a study that tried to assess the relative distractiveness of different activities undertaken while driving.

That study put talking on a two-way radio as roughly half-as-distracting as talking on a handheld cell phone. But it put talking on a hands-free cell phone as very slightly less distracting as talking on a two-way radio.

I don't think it's a simplex/duplex thing. I think it's a "holding something to your face" thing.

 

I think the report also mentioned " EOTR " Eyes Off The Road as well... the most obvious distraction I think.

 

There's 10 kinds of people, those that know binary, and those that don't.

 

Maybe if it was worded better AND you were smart enough to watch out for yourselves
when this was written as was done in NJ you wouldn't be whining about this now.

Notice how the NJ law specifically exempts certain radio services. I guess your representatives don't care about your votes enough to look out for you when it comes to writing these laws.

An Act concerning the use of wireless telephones and electronic communication devices in motor vehicles and amending P.L.2003, c.310.

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. Section 1 of P.L.2003, c.310 (C.39:4-97.3) is amended to read as follows:

1. a. The use of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device by an operator of a moving motor vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is a hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free, provided that its placement does not interfere with the operation of federally required safety equipment and the operator exercises a high degree of caution in the operation of the motor vehicle. For the purposes of this section, an "electronic communication device" shall not include an amateur radio.

Nothing in P.L.2003, c.310 (C.39:4-97.3 et seq.) shall apply to the use of a citizen's band radio or two-way radio by an operator of a moving commercial motor vehicle or authorized emergency vehicle on a public road or highway.

b. The operator of a motor vehicle may use a hand-held wireless telephone while driving with one hand on the steering wheel only if:

(1) The operator has reason to fear for his life or safety, or believes that a criminal act may be perpetrated against himself or another person; or

(2) The operator is using the telephone to report to appropriate authorities a fire, a traffic accident, a serious road hazard or medical or hazardous materials emergency, or to report the operator of another motor vehicle who is driving in a reckless, careless or otherwise unsafe manner or who appears to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A hand-held wireless telephone user's telephone records or the testimony or written statements from appropriate authorities receiving such calls shall be deemed sufficient evidence of the existence of all lawful calls made under this paragraph.

As used in this act:

"Citizen's band radio" means a mobile communication device designed to allow for the transmission and receipt of radio communications on frequencies allocated for citizen's band radio service use.

"Hands-free wireless telephone" means a mobile telephone that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile telephone, by which a user engages in a conversation without the use of either hand; provided, however, this definition shall not preclude the use of either hand to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the telephone.

"Two-way radio" means two-way communications equipment that uses VHF frequencies approved by the Federal Communications Commission.

"Use" of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device shall include, but not be limited to, talking or listening to another person on the telephone, text messaging, or sending an electronic message via the wireless telephone or electronic communication device.
----
Full text here:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/AL13/70_.HTM

 

You are not required to take an exam, and provided with a federal license to watch TV and/or talk on your cellphone?! I wouldn't put it passed lawmakers to add these laws to the books before my lifetime is over!

Mike
K4BOX