That also goes to the premise that there ARE distractions in cars, no doubt. So to hear the nay-sayers tell it, we should also "ban" listening to the car radio, changing the station, adjusting the heater/AC, talking with other passengers in the car, correcting the children. ALL these things cause distraction to one degree another. So can operating a two way radio. However, the issue goes to the degree of distraction and at which point does that distraction cause a diminishing attention to driving the car, ultimately to said point where the operator is in danger of swerving, missing a curve, slowing well below the posted speed, impeding traffic. These things can be studied (and have been ) to tell us what things distract us while driving. Little attention has been paid to operating two way radios, getting only minor mention in what studies HAVE been done. It is my belief that the reason is because it has not had enough impact to merit such scrutiny: if it HAD, it would done so during the CB craze when it was almost not cool NOT to have a CB in the car. We have been engaging in all the above mentioned things ever since the automobile hit the road. Certainly, people DID have wrecks due to these things, but the thing that really brought "distracted driving" to the fore was the cell phone. So do we BAN talking to passengers? Listening to the FM radio? Shushing the restless children? A logical legislature-even a good parent-metes out discipline for specific infractions. Or passes laws/rules to address a problem. Both cases are because a problem has surfaced with driving (or within a family), and that infraction is something that causes harm to individuals or a group. So, we locate the source of the problem, attempt to isolate it, and deal out punishment as warranted. Because Johnny has committed a wrong, do we punish his sister as well simply because she is related to him? NO. And we shouldn't punish hams because a different, but similar, device is being used by the general public to cause danger. I once again must disagree. Brief 91-36 says a LOT about transmitting. . We believe that the strong federal interest in supporting the emergency services provided by amateurs cannot be fully accomplished unless amateur operators are free to own and operate their stations to the fullest extent permitted by their licenses and are not unreasonably hampered in their ability to transport their radio transmitting stations across state and local boundaries for purposes of transmitting and receiving on authorized frequencies. Indeed, as a result of advances in technology making smaller, lighter weight radios commercially available, the Commission has expressly amended its rules to facilitate and encourage UNRESTRICTED mobile operations. (my italics) As we noted in a recent rule making proceeding to modify the rules governing the amateur radio service....................................................." (incomplete sentence is FCC's.) Now "mobile" implies mobile, "unrestricted" implies UN-restricted and, IMHO, includes transmitting. "Fullest extent permitted by their licenses" means, IMHO, fullest extent. Why? Cuz 91-36 SAYS SO! To accomplish FCC's purpose and intent for the Amateur Service, to continue its historical role in emergency services, amateurs must be able to transmit! What good does it do for a ham to see a forest fire and be restricted from transmitting a call to authorities or to issue a warning? He/she needs to be able to grab the mike and sing out RIGHT NOT!!! SO! if 91-36 spoke of transmitting, even THEN, is it not now still a legal point of law that stands until FCC makes a change on the law to address "distracted driving" and the impact of such restrictions on radio operators by states? Distracted driving was not an issue in 1989-'91. Given the law as it stands regarding Part 97, I believe it would have to be changed to allow states to restrict/enforce FCC rules regarding AR-even CB and commercial two way radio. The use of radio and TRANSMITTING equipment is certainly within the purview of the FCC. On that I agree wholly. I don't think Molly the Horse is "dead" yet!