Virginia senator wants to restrict amateur mobile more than CB

Here's what New Hampshire did - thanks in large part to the ARRL State SM.

Note section 265.79-cII(b):

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-79-c.htm

But I do like N0TZU's postulate: "don't assume malice when stupidity will suffice"

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but if an opinion is to be made into law or a rule, the burden of proof that two-way radio has been "demonstrably" detrimental to driving ability is on you. Where is your proof?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NO, basic driving skill: if you can talk on an HT and drive, you should not have a license! Do you keep both hands on the steering wheel too?

de NK2U

 

Proofs are for mathematicians.

The rest of us have to settle for evidence, which we then have to evaluate... e.g., https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html

Those numbers aren't proof of anything, but they do suggest that there is a causal link between cell phone use while driving, and accidents caused by inattention.

That doesn't mean that such use should be banned (although some places already do that). But it does suggest that there is a very healthy element of caution that is required while doing anything but watching the road while "flying the left-hand seat" and also that there are a large number of people who don't understand that.

 

And that is the reason I do not believe the use of two way radios (vs cell phones) should be banned, or that the state has any authority to do so. Anything can be a distraction IF it allows one's attention to be diverted for in-car activities for more than a couple seconds, then it becomes a distraction. Amateur radios, commercial two ways, CB's, don't do that. There's no evidence that they do. I'm sure there have been incidents caused by it, BUT I would lay odds that the instances of that would almost minuscule, barely raising the "needle".

WE have history, law, and legal precedent on OUR side. Let's not throw it away! What if the ham(s) affected by the "scanner laws" had just rolled over and played dead? But NO! They stood up for what was RIGHT, and the result was FCC coming down our OUR side in court. But if we merely sit still, say nothing (except to whine, moan, and criticize each other), then we'll get what we deserve (?).

I believe FCC (even Congress) wants us to be able to use our radios to serve in emergencies, (2) back up existing communications, (3) serve the community as needed, 4) help develop new technologies to enhance the radio art. That's in addition to enjoying a great hobby that serves as fertile ground for new developments in said art.

Two examples for those who feel that amateur radio is "just" a hobby. 1) Rapid quick connects for antennas, used by amateurs and commercial operators. These were developed by K4EDK of Cherryville, NC, now mfr'ed by Breedlove of Gastonia, NC (my home town). Another is a very advanced, computer-controlled ALE mobile antenna that is used by the US Navy on their ships and other military. I will not advertise here, as per QRZ rules, but it is a very well-known screwdriver builder. Charlie advertises the fact on his website. Both these developments came from amateurs who found a need and answered that need. To, in essence, throw cold water on mobile operations would put out the "fire" of development, stymie the urge to help the community (for fear of getting unfair tickets), and create resentment. Knowing that two way radio is NOT the problem and being ticketed for doing what is historically and lawfully legal, it would highly p*ss me OFF!

Of course, we know that Amateur Radio is not the do-all, be-all of emergency communications;we know that. Having our efforts, large and small, slapped down in a USELESS effort to curb distracted driving caused by another group is just wrong.

Evidence shows that cell phones and consumer electronic devices DO cause a disparate number of accidents. Stopping texting and gaming (Pokey-Mon-Go) is a worthy effort. I've gotten after my daughter for playing that game while driving, seemingly aimlessly, around playing such games. I've been shied out of my lane by texting drivers and people totally engrossed in their cell phones. I've NEVER had to swerve or stop by someone "distracted" (NOT!) by a two way radio!

 

Because I was quoting from memory, not directly from the Docket. I should have said, [paraphrasing]. Just a poor choice of words, You're nitpicking!

 

Since when have radios including ham radios not been consumer electronics?

It appears you just fundamentally contradicted yourself but that's understandable given the argument here.

 

Okay, I now understand what you mean with the quotes. You're saying that you interpret that document to imply that the FCC's intent was to "to encourage unrestricted MOBILE amateur operations and emergency communications across state boundaries". Fair enough, there is a sentence similar to that in the document but I think your interpretation is wrong. What I get from the document is this:

Amateur radio operators play with radios. They often have them in their cars. Some states want to ban scanners to stop crooks listening to the cops. It just so happens that with modern technology, many modern amateur radio mobile transceivers have general coverage receivers which means that they can effectively act as "police scanners" in additional to their primary function. This unfairly puts amateur radio operators in a bind. It says a lot of words and eventually ends with:

"We do find that state and local laws must not restrict possession of amateur transceivers simply because they are capable if reception of public safety, special emergency or other radio service frequencies of which is not prohibited by federal law, and that a state or local permit scheme will not save from preemption and otherwise objectionable law."

Note that it only talks about possession and receiving, not about transmitting and definitely not about driving. I think you're really flogging a dead horse if you think this ruling is going to override distracted driving laws. The use of radio equipment to receive and even more so to transmit is well with the purview of the FCC. What you're allowed to do while driving is not.

I think the inconsistency in the Virginia case has a good chance of being sorted out with some calm sensible discussion with the state law makers as has happened in other states but this is not it.

 

Hey wait a minute ! A baby would NEVER be a distraction while driving.

 

Nor would arguing 8 year olds. Maybe children in cars should be outlawed too?

I'm being facetious, sort of.