~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If YOU can't talk on the radio and drive, then YOU shouldn't be driving, period! de NK2U
In evaluating distractions, context matters and determines the complexity of the driving situation and the response time potentially needed. Something that is unacceptably distracting on a busy city street may be fine on a lonely rural road or a lightly used interstate highway. One must exercise good judgement, and most drivers do. Unfortunately, too many don't which is why we get nanny laws. I hope the CA law gets modified for ham use. But let's not delude ourselves into believing that hams are somehow immune to the very real problem of distracted driving.
Nowhere in the law is there an exception for commercial vehicles. There are thousands of pickup trucks and similar that are (forcibly) registered as commercial and you can bet your booty if you were using a cell phone in one of them you could get cited. Since the wording of the law is still up to interpretation, the same possibility would be true for two-way radio.
Since it's inception, CHP has maintained (as K0MAN discovered upon entering the Golden State) that they would in fact "strictly enforce" 23123.5 cvc as written. So the inspections officer at the checkpoint of entry (which use to only concern themselves with fruitys and veggies), was correct. In the last 48 hours, the following excerpt has surfaced directing CHP officers that Amateur Radio, Business Band Radio, CB Radio are not to be enforced as "wireless communications devices" under 23123.5 cvc For the purposes of Section 23123.5(f) CVC, a radio installed and mounted in a vehicle with a wired hand microphone (e.g., business band or citizen band [CB] radio) is not considered a wireless communication device, nor is it considered a specialized mobile radio device, and therefore is not subject to enforcement under this section. Local law enforcement agencies are not bound by this direction and may still "strictly enforce" 23123.5... The effort to have the law changed or repealed continues and there are on-line petitions in circulation. https://www.change.org/p/correct-am...23123-5-cellular-hands-free-public-safety-law
I'm not an attorney but couldn't an argument be made here off the first amendment? Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. As I look at it communication is freedom of speech in any form. Isn't press communication? I'm big supporter of the second ammendment too but we must be smart about it because let's face it, some people should not have access to them. The bottom line here is radio in general is used safely every day but as someone pointed out there are people driving that should not be driving.
Re the comment by NZ6Q, I read the revised interpretation of the law as at the very least requiring either a mobile rig or a speaker mic. That means that anyone using an HT without a separate mic would still fall foul of CA law. 73 de N3KIP
So you wimped out, are you proud of that? Our ancestors fought a war and won the right to challenge unjust laws and the right of civil disobedience. Carl
The answer to all of this is simple. America is a nation founded on the principle of individual liberty. Making a law against operating a communication device in your vehicle erodes individual liberty in the name of safety. Is safety a good thing? Of course it is. But there comes a point (which is different for each person) where the scale tips too far in favor of safety and you begin to feel much less free. For me, on this issue, that tipping point has been surpassed with this law. I am of a mind that government employees are people too, and just as fallible as the rest of us. The most insulting, demeaning, degrading thing I can think of are laws that presume ordinary Americans are some kind of incompetent underclass who can't handle the common everyday activities our parents' generation managed without issue. This law essentially means nobody should even bother with buying a mobile radio if they live in California, because if they have to pull over to the side of the road and turn the engine off to use it, it totally defeats the purpose (which is communicating while mobile). A decades-old practice that has been relatively safe compared to "texting" should not be restricted because new, unrelated technology (texting) is causing wrecks. I have heard all of the arguments. They are the same ones people trot out about seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, attempting to convince us that we should be forced to undertake safety precautions for our own good and the good of others. But as a society, we have to decide at what point do all these precautions inconvenience us enough to accept some risk in the interest of preserving freedom and self determination. As I mentioned before, that point has already been reached in my estimation. The additional safety to be gained by lumping in 2 way radios along with smart phones is not worth the inconvenience and loss of freedom. And I don't care "if it saves just one life". Even if that life is mine or someone I love, I am willing to take that risk to be free to operate a radio in my vehicle. I can get on board with outlawing texting while driving, but operating a microphone PTT is no more complicated than switching your high beams off and on as a courtesy to oncoming traffic and it shouldn't be restricted.
Yep faced with A threat of a possible $300 fine while driving on Vacation in California for either using my cell phone or ham radio, I whimper out and elected to enjoy the vacation, the scenery, my XYL and concentrate on my driving. My BAD!!
KM1H. Ya I wimped out. PUT my Ham radio to a back seat, (Trunk Actually), enjoyed my vacation, my lovley XYL, avoided a possible $300 Ticket and the possibility of getting bothered by the CHP, took in all of the sites, played golf in Carmel, hiked in Big Sur, visited the Hearst Castle, went fishing in Morro Bay and Actually I enjoyed my vacation in California without Ham Radio......WoW some won't believe that one!! I am 68 and ride a Harley Wide Glide for cruising and I ride a 2011 Yamaha YZF-R1 1000cc, as well and in 2016 I won the 50 and above, "Old Coger 100" here in MN with a top speed of 121 mph, and I have some pretty nice wins under my belt as well.. I work out and can still get whistled at by women....How about you? "But, Yes, Yes, I wimped out on that one."
It could be worse... we can still use handheld devices while walking.... (I think)... Take a look at New Jersey! hopefully ham radio will be exempted in New Jersey's "texting while walking law" http://nypost.com/2016/03/26/it-could-soon-be-illegal-to-text-while-walking-in-new-jersey/
I am fully behind any state that wishes to pass a bill which will ban the use of any hand held device while driving. Its simply common sense. (quote) And I am not. I AM in favor of restricting the ACTUAL culprits in so-called "distracted" driving. The culprit IS..............the cellphone which, by its very nature, tends to fully engulf the user in THAT activity. Driving itself does involve smaller distractions that must, and CAN, be dealt with by the human mind's current multi-tasking capabilities. ANYTHING can be a distraction IF you let it--a sudden noise, the scenery (a luscious girl beside the road), traffic, nearby accidents---ALL can be distracting IF you let it. The two way radio does not lend itself by its design or intent in any significant way. Without launching into a long discourse, the reasons why two way radios and the mike it is used with do not constitute enough of said distraction to be a major cause of distraction. It would rate on a par with changing the broadcast radio dial, quieting the children, stopping a grocery bag from sliding off the seat. If two way radios were a significant cause of this "distracted" driving, it would have already been shown to do so. Even studies that have been done admit that the risk is small, especially when compared to cellphones and texting (also games like pokeymon go [sic] ). It almost doesn't even cause a blip on an imaginary screen of tests done WRT cellphones/texting. From conversations I've had with ARRL representatives, they agree with ME, that such state laws regarding the use of two way radios would be ILLEGAL because of the way FCC rules and Part 97 are written, FCC's unabashed support for unabridged used of mobile amateur (and even commercial two way) radios (see 91-36), and the LACK of any significant evidence that such use constitutes but a minute danger. It is the CELLPHONE that has brought this upon us. Traditionally, FCC has stepped upon states' laws that attempted to govern two way radio (See state of Delaware, the city of Palm Desert et al). Two way mobile radio use is the sole purvey of Federal law: cell phones are a contract device that has its own specific rules, in which local yokels CAN restrict their use. Without a change in Federal law, states cannot ban, or restrict the two way radio. Yes, they WILL try thru their own ignorance. We criticize ARRL (with some justification). In this one, they are quietly involved in pointing out errors and bending legislators' ears to make them aware of these facts. As it stands now, yes, in some jurisdictions, there will have to be test case to show the state, county, city, the error of their ways. I'll tell you up front, friends, I am enough convinced of the above that I would haul their fat a**es into Federal Court so fast, their heads will whirl if Bubba pulls such on me! I am all for dealing with REAL driving distractions; that is, the distraction itself that causes the problem. And the primary villain IS the cellphone, NOT the two way radio. Throw out the dirty bath water, not the "baby".
At which point, I, if ever confronted with this, will haul the billious b****rds into FEDERAL court so fast................................ Such laws are currently counter to FEDERAL law and FCC rules as written. See other post. Legal, ARRL and others I've spoken to, plus what I have read, lead me to this conclusion. It will probably take a test case in court to prove this. .......................which needs to happen.
