ad: NI4L-2

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: L-rfparts
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-gcopper
ad: Subscribe
  1. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    84% of the membership of Media Statisticians of America disagree.
     
    WR2E likes this.
  2. KV6O

    KV6O Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    And 4 out of 3 people have difficulty with fractions.

    Steve
    KV6O
     
    N1EN, WR2E and W6JWZ like this.
  3. WA6MHZ

    WA6MHZ Subscriber QRZ Page

    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
     
    W6JWZ likes this.
  4. W6JWZ

    W6JWZ Ham Member Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    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....
     
  5. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    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!:oops::rolleyes:

    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!!!:D Ya's might not like the reaction!!!! Nope. I won't ever have self-driving cars.:) I don't even like "Radar Cruise Control"!:mad:

    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.
     
    WD4DUI likes this.
  6. WR2E

    WR2E Ham Member QRZ Page

    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?"
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2016
  7. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  8. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    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!:)
     
  9. WR2E

    WR2E Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  10. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Don't forget, there are three kinds of people out there: those who can count, and those who can't.
     
    WR2E likes this.

Share This Page