ad: elecraft

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

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by K6ZOO, Oct 27, 2016.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: abrind-2
  1. KA9JLM

    KA9JLM Ham Member QRZ Page

    The test should be 25 WPM texting while driving without looking at the phone.
     
  2. K7VV

    K7VV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Think there has been a great over reaction to this legislation. California traffic code 23123.5 defines what a 'electronic wireless communications device' is, and it is clearly NOT a two-way radio. The prohibition only aimed at text messaging by phone, and has nothing whatever to do with ham radio. On top of which, amateur radio is a Federally regulated service, and the states know very well the problem of trying to pass a state law that contravenes Federal law and regulation.
     
  3. KA9JLM

    KA9JLM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Houston TX recently passed a law, But they claim to only be giving warnings, Until people learn about the new law.

    People are not driving a telephone booth, Like many think they are.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2016
    KG7VTO likes this.
  4. WA6VPS

    WA6VPS Ham Member QRZ Page

    $20 fine is actually ~$160ish after court fees - it's like a seatbelt ticket the base starts low then they throw in all the other crap. The real question will be how private industry reacts to this. Tow Trucks, Taxi cabs and other 'non-emergency' personnel. Personally I think every time the cops ask for a tow the tow truck operator should just ignore the call on their 2-way now, they were already enroute elsewhere and needed to 'keep their eyes on the road' :)
     
  5. WA6VPS

    WA6VPS Ham Member QRZ Page

    False. The prohibition is aimed at any wireless device, texting and talking. From the OP

    23123.5
    (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while driving. See also http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article104330791.html

    For reference, here is the old law:

    (c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-23123-5.html#sthash.JuCb1iF8.dpuf

    The legislature explicitly repealed the entire section instead of amending it, they specifically left out the exemption of placing/receiving calls or activating & deactivating features on 'an electronic wireless communication device.', and they explicitly defined the term to INCLUDED, but not LIMITed to, a specialized mobile radio device -- even if we can't agree " a specialized mobile radio device" includes ham/CB/2-way radio, the broad definition is NOT limited to 'a specialized mobile radio' and thus can include any 'wireless communication device' which surely would include 2-way radios, which by the ordinary and plain meaning of the words are both electronic, wireless and a communications device. If the legislature did not intend to prohibit such usage they could have made a very more narrow definition of the term, and/or added an exemption as they have in other statutes.

    Edit: It may also be of interest that 2-way radio push-to-talk WAS specifically exempted, and may be argued, that since it's repeal in 2011, has been considered illegal since that date, and this new statute fills the gaps in any ambiguity that it wasn't.

    A person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles, that requires either a commercial class A or class B driver's license to operate (subd. (e)(1)): A motor truck, as defined in V.C. § 410; A truck tractor, as defined in V.C. § 655 (Subd. (e)(1)(A)) The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a person driving a pickup truck, as defined in V.C. § 471. (Subd. (e)(1)(B)) An implement of husbandry that is listed or described V.C. §§ 36000 et seq., in Chapter 1 of Division 16. (Subd. (e)(2)) A farm vehicle that is exempt from registration and displays an identification plate as specified in V.C. § 5014 and is listed in V.C. § 36101. (Subd. (e)(3)) A commercial vehicle, as defined in V.C. § 260, that is registered to a farmer and driven by the farmer or an employee of the farmer, and is used in conducting commercial agricultural operations, including, but not limited to, transporting agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to, or from, a farm. (Subd. (e)(4)) A tow truck, as defined in V.C. § 615. (Subd. (e)(5)) (Note: Subd. (e) is deleted as of 7/1/2011.) This section also does not apply to: A person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to V.C. § 23125. (Subd. (f)) A person while driving a motor vehicle on private property. (Subd. (g)) This section is operative as of July 1, 2008, and shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2011, and, as of July 1, 2011, is repealed. (Subd. (h))
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  6. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is precisely what I have been saying all along. Where is ARRL in this now? Has anyone called them to learn their position on this? (I'm not a member). I still say this is a (missed?) opportunity to test/defy the states on their little piss-ant laws that do nothing to solve a problem! First of all, the states certainly have a right to govern the behaviors of drivers (speeding, reckless driving, drivers' responsibilities WRT accidents), but when it comes to directly countering US law, THAT, is another matter. First of all, Mobile operations of two way radio has not only been permitted by US law for 60+ years. it has been actively encouraged and supported by FCC, and there is precedent recorded into the Federal Record to back it up. (See FCC 91-36) Court cases are based on PROOF, and the burden of proof will be on the state to PROVE that the use of a microphone has caused "distracted driving" to the extent that a "law" is needed. They would be asked to justify their overstepping of FCC's authority whose governance of amateur and other types of LICENSED two way radio is based on the Communications Act of 1934. They would then shown the numerous cases of said distracted driving, and made to show that the two way radio has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this issue. The court would then be shown explanations in the DIFFERENCES in operation of two way radio vs that of a cellphone ( simplex vs duplex). Then one would introduce into evidence FCC document 91-36, read in its entirety. Particular attention would be paid to those paragraphs where FCC unequivocally stated its undiluted support for MOBILE AMATEUR RADIO, and its use while underway.

    OK, Kalifornia.......go ahead and drive off Donner Pass! See if *I* stop- to help ya's!
     
  7. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Just get the independent truckers to boycott Kalifornia. Refuse to deliver their groceries. See how long THAT lasts!
     
  8. W5TTP

    W5TTP Ham Member QRZ Page

    What? CW ops screwed whilst those of EMCOMM status get to continue to 10-4?

    We migrated from CA 14 years ago. As refugees, we were blessed to be accepted into society by the patriots residing in the Republic of Texas. God bless Texas and amateur (not H.A.M., or hambo) radio.

    chuck
     
  9. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    HOLD THE "PHONE"! I just got off the telly with HQ CHP!!!! It does nothing to do with our two way radios!!!!!!!!!~ It applies to cellphones and wireless consumer devices ONLY. WE may now stand down from DEFCON2! :p:p:p:p:p:p (For now!)
     
  10. KR6AUL

    KR6AUL XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have heard many local hams here call the CHP and they said the same thing. So for now, I will stand down...back to condition Hamcon
     
  11. WU6X

    WU6X Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Well ... the simple answer is that our legislature doesn't give a damn about the occupants of the state; only what the unions (State and Teachers) want. We need a "house (and Senate) cleaning" here, so to speak. We're getting screwed on gun laws too ... of course, this will definitely make it harder for the bad guys ... right!
     
    W6GRD likes this.
  12. W6GRD

    W6GRD Ham Member QRZ Page

    The fact that a LEO may interpret the laws as written one way does not mean another LEO won't have a different interpretation.
    The senior LEO that has seen PTT/Radio activities is vehicles for 20+ years thinks nothing of it. The newly minted LEO could certainly take the law as written and apply it PTT/Radio scenarios, cite and "let the judge decide".
     
  13. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    IN such case, then I would do everything I could to call out said LEO during the court proceeding and make him out the buffoon he is!

    Seriously, this is a matter of concern still! Because sooner or later a city, county, or state is sure to decide that they are the ruling "law" regarding our two way radios. They have been shot down before (see, I believe, Palm Desert who summarily ruled that amateur/CB radio could not be used within their [sniff, sniff] town limits. Period. That, and several other local (yokel) ordinances were shut down pretty quick by FCC. This is no different. We (ARRL?) should find out now how far local jurisdictions can go in "regulating" two way radio. Having a ruling from FCC as to same could come in handy when future local ordinances raise their ugly heads!
     
  14. KA9JLM

    KA9JLM Ham Member QRZ Page

    For enforcing the law ?
     
  15. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    California used to be great. As a kid in the 60's and a young man in the 70's we could do almost anything we wanted, it wasn't crowded and there was not a bunch of stupid legislation on the books to protect us from ourselves. My family all live there along with our oldest daughter and even they don't like it anymore. For years I spent at least 8 weeks out of every year in California at various Army and Marine Corps installations so I visited my folks in Laguna, my brother and sister in Pismo, and my daughter in San Diego pretty often.

    I started to notice the up tightness around the late 1980's when Nancy Pelosi came along and started dispensing nanny state law. In spite of the nice weather in San Diego I have no desire to move back to Southern California ever. The taxes are ridiculous, it is way too crowded, and there are far too many a holes for me. I prefer the relative quiet of Arizona or even Nevada. They don't even sell 93 octane gas in California and that is just totally wrong.
     

Share This Page

ad: elecraft