Mobile Handheld Device/Amateur Radio Laws by State?

Discussion in 'On the Road' started by W3TPL, Dec 27, 2016.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: l-BCInc
ad: L-Geochron
  1. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'll take "conditioned" to mean "trained". And the problem is, knowing which other drivers are properly conditioned/trained and which ones aren't. AFAIK, no ham is certified as being conditioned/trained. With progressively greater auto traffic, the odds of an accident (even when NOT using radio device) is progressively greater. And, since there's no requirement that hams use a radio while in motion, it make sense to NOT include hams in this bad legislation. Someone who is a ham in WA ought to contact his legislator to advise them they made a mistakie. I live in WA.
    That would be the radio frequency, which is immaterial.
  2. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    So we must punish the innocent along with the guilty. At least this is what these A H laws do. And they neither prevent nor stop distracted driving. Amateur radio/two way/ commercial radio use make not a microscopic impact on it. Of course, I believe that actions by drivers can, and DO, contribute to accidents. So PUNISH the GUILTY, not that which has NOTHING to do with it!:( Readers, tell me: How many accidents have YOU been in involving your use of a two way radio? Did you "shy" someone out of their lane by swerving while using your mike? OTH, how many times have you had to jerk, or swerve, or stop suddenly to avoid somebody with a cellphone stuck up...............I mean, up to their face or glued to their ear. oblivious to the world around them? I don't recall EVER being "distracted" while on my radio. NO one has ever forced me off the road because of their two way radio!!!!!

    I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate being accused by association for the actions of others. I do NOT willingly acquiesce to goody-two shoes little busybodies trying to control me, especially when its for an activity that has NOTHING to do with what others happen to be doing with their cellphones. And for that reason, having fought this to the best of my ability, I say without guilt, that in the event that such laws come to pass in my state, I will happily drive past any law enforcement agent, legislator who drives his car in the ditch ( or into the lake, for that matter), saying, "sorry, bud, I would use my radio to call for help, but you passed a stupid little p**-ant law that says I can't, so you can just SIT there".:)

    I must be a New Hampshire-ite for I love that motto, "Live Free, or DIE".:) Take yer snotnosed "help", yer Gol-durn laws and CHOKE on 'em!:D:D:D
    KG7OTL and W3TPL like this.
  3. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow. Just WOW. :(
  4. W3TPL

    W3TPL Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Exactly my intent with this thread, unfortunately, the mention of amateur radio is so sparse. I can barely make out my own state's laws regarding it!
  5. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm on the email list for updates to Washington HB 1371 - 2017-18. Just today, I received another update from and guess what? The bill is still in the House (it hasn't even made it to the Senate, let alone the Governor's desk). Please DON'T take my word for it... read it for yourself:
  6. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    And, thankfully, according to the "Substitute Bill" there posted, it exempts Amateur Radio and Citizens Band operators as it should. That is, IF I am reading that section correctly. Now I am not as radical as you might think, tho I do deeply resent these state laws that infringe on our ability to use our Federally licensed radios. I do also believe, however, that states are unwittingly superceding Federal law, and the traditional oversight of FCC over the scope of use regarding two way radio whose original intent was to permit the FULL, unfettered use of two way radios. In order for states to do this, the Feds would have to amend the US Code and the Communications Act to allow states to do this. And some states WILL do this IF we sit idly by and not challenge it. It is also my belief that those state laws that have been amended, likely thru the efforts of in-state hams and their ARRL helpers, were changed because 1) the lobbying efforts and 2) because it was pointed out to legislators that they would face challenges in court if this were not changed. Thus far, those states that have been challenged have introduced amendments/exemptions, and, I believe, because it was pointed out that states cannot regulate two way radio or prevent its use due to Federal statutes.

    Very likely, it will take a challenge in court, or a ham being unfairly charged with a "crime" who drags their fat ****** into court. OTH, its nice to see that some locals are seeing the light!
    W3TPL likes this.
  7. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    The equipment isn't Federally licensed. It's the operators who are licensed. And, there's no requirement to operate at all, let alone in a lethal moving vehicle. Given a choice between my life being put at risk by someone who's not trained to simultaneously operate a motor vehicle while operating a communication device, and life, I'll choose life EVERY time.
    WD0BCT likes this.
  8. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Now you're "cherry picking".;) I do know that operators are licensed, not the equipment.

    And there should be no restrictions whatsoever when a licensed operator chooses to exercise the scope of his license. The key here is level of risk. No "training" is, or should be, needed to use a microphone because the level of risk is extremely low when compared to the RISK involved with the cellphone. That's because of the way the cellphone operates as opposed to the simplex nature of the two way. It is that nature that compels the user to become totally involved in that singular activity alone. The cellphone and the texting that goes with it FORCES the user to engage with the instant activity, become absorbed in the TWO WAY conversation because it is on-going and all but DEMANDS the user's attention RIGHT NOW, thus diverting attention from driving the vehicle and reacting to the inputs from outside the car. The two way radio does not, and never has, diverted one's total attention FROM driving the car. The main ingredient in this is, input FROM the radio can be delayed, and often IS, by the operator himself. One way is, "Stand by one", or "wait a minute, I've got traffic". That is also part and parcel of the fact that this info stream is ONE WAY, not TWO WAY and ongoing, also DEMANDING one's attention to the stream in the "right now."

    Training is not necessary for using a two way radio simply because the attention required to operate the vehicle, see and react to potential dangers is almost minute. The most glaring example of this is the CB craze of the 70's & 80's. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of CB radios, suddenly appeared on cars and trucks. Seemed almost everybody was absorbed with this "10-4 Good Buddy" and "Ya got a B'ar in th' ar, thar!" No one ever brought up that's its dangerous to use a two way radio in those days, even faced with the huge numbers of CB sets being used in the mobile. We didn't even have cellphones in those days. Common Carrier commercial car phones where you dialed the mobile operator, yes. Cellphones, no.

    Then as the numbers of cellphones went UP, the numbers of mobile CB sets down (maybe even ham radios, too), we started hearing about "distracted driving". Where there's smoke, there's fire! And the smoke, AND the problem is coming from what? T H E C E L L P H O N E. NOT the two way radio. Use of a two way radio should NOT be fettered in any way.

    I certainly agree that the cellphone does cause a problem, and needs to be restricted because of what it does to the user: take away his attention from driving the car. The two way radio no more does that than listening to James Taylor's guitar, changing the dial on the radio, or adjusting the A/C. Do you want us to remove A/C from our cars? How about "banning" broadcast radios? Would you like that? Well, since you apparently believe that there is such "dangers" in these activities that have been shown to be about equal to using a radio mike, then, by your belief, we must do that as well. Why not go back to a Model A Ford?:D (Have you ever driven one of these?):D Or not drive at all? That'd solve it, right?

    We are slowly removing the last vestiges of freedom and choice in this country by cow-towing to asinine regulations that sound oh-so
    good, but really provide more and more stepping stones to a rigid, non-conforming society while doing no real good at all.:) Remember the story of the frog placed in warm water. It felt good. Gradually the heat was increased EVER, ever so slowly, and the frog got used to the heat--------------------until he was COOKED! Poor frog.:( Poor American society.:(

    I never lived in New Hampshire, but I must have in a "former" life! "Live FREE or DIE" rings so loudly in my ears.:);)
    Last edited: May 24, 2017
    W3TPL likes this.
  9. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow. Just WOW... again. :(
  10. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    ;)Well, I used to OWN a Model A Ford...........................! LOL!:D:) Never put a radio in it, tho!

Share This Page

ad: wmr-1