new ham law here in ct

[joetnymedic]

AN ACT EXEMPTING AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS USING HAND-HELD RADIOS FROM THE PROHIBITION ON USING HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES AND MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES WHILE DRIVING.

[PJH]

Prob lobbied by the ARRL with the incident that happened in NY a couple of years back. Not nessesarly bad, unless you have some OF trying to do HF morse going down 91 at rush hour..

[Rt169Radio]

I noticed that it only said "the use of a hand-held radio", do they mean mobile radios too with a hand mic?

[GumbyCT]

Originally Posted by Rt169Radio

I noticed that it only said "the use of a hand-held radio", do they mean mobile radios too with a hand mic?

My guess is not. But it would prob be a reasonable defense when trying to report an emergency.

The exact quote says...

or (C) the use of a hand-held radio by a person with an amateur radio station license issued by the Federal Communications Commission, or (D) the use of a hands-free mobile telephone.

I think that licensed radio operators have always been exempt from driving with two hands on the wheel and this may be an attempt to update the older law. Maybe they just missed the "mobile" part?

[lep]

Originally Posted by PJH

Prob lobbied by the ARRL with the incident that happened in NY a couple of years back. Not nessesarly bad, unless you have some OF trying to do HF morse going down 91 at rush hour..

Gee the last time I used HF Morse while whizzing down a highway was in 1953 while enroute to the ARRL National Convention at the Shamrock Hotel. At the time, being a student I hardly qualified for your description as an OF. I guess I qualify now but these days many of the amatuers who are worried about this modification of the Statute probably wouldn't recognize their own call sign if sent in Morse.

[russellmaher]

I don't see the need to come up with an exemption to the current law, since the one we have on the books isn't enforced by any PD either state or local. Just watch and count (if you can) the number of cars on CT roads that have a driver with a phone device in use - either talking or texting, and you'll probably watch as a LE vehicle of some jurisdiction will just drive on by.

OK, I see that I've just highjacked your thread, I'm sorry cuz that wasn't my intention. Carry on!

I'll just skulk over to the rants forum and do this.

Russell

[quarterwave]

That's ok, our highway patrol officers drive with no hands anyway. Sending IM's with the right hand in the laptop, and holding the cell with the left. One almost wrecked me, he was left of center and going about 80. I'm sure his defense would be that he was responding to a call.

In my state the Governor slid something through legislature in the 80s that if a HP officer is in a accident, it is never his fault. If he is doing 100 with no lights on at all in the dark, crosses the median and hits you head on.....you will get a ticket if you survive. Talk about corruption.

[PJH]

Originally Posted by russellmaher

I don't see the need to come up with an exemption to the current law, since the one we have on the books isn't enforced by any PD either state or local. Just watch and count (if you can) the number of cars on CT roads that have a driver with a phone device in use - either talking or texting, and you'll probably watch as a LE vehicle of some jurisdiction will just drive on by.

OK, I see that I've just highjacked your thread, I'm sorry cuz that wasn't my intention. Carry on!

I'll just skulk over to the rants forum and do this.

Russell

My troop wrote those all the time. But when your going call to call....you usually don't bother with that. If there is a traffic violation already going, then there is a good chance that it will be tacted on.

[GumbyCT]

Originally Posted by PJH

If there is a traffic violation already going, then there is a good chance that it will be tacted on.

Or during a seatbelt/DUI check esp. with Holiday Greetings

[GumbyCT]

Originally Posted by russellmaher

I don't see the need to come up with an exemption to the current law, since the one we have on the books isn't enforced by any PD either state or local. Just watch and count (if you can) the number of cars on CT roads that have a driver with a phone device in use - either talking or texting, and you'll probably watch as a LE vehicle of some jurisdiction will just drive on by.
Russell

Just like today or any other with reduced visibility and all those cars that MUST have disabled their Daytime Running Lights and are driving around in the rain in a grey car and NO headlights.

I have a 96 with DRL's yet these newer cars don't seem to have it, go figure.

[PJH]

DRL's are not required by state or federal laws... and DRL's are not approved when headlights are required. Headlights are

DRL's were a fad in the middle 90's as everyone was jumping on the fact that Canada required them, but they used the headlamps up there. Now they are more of a style than anything else.

More than anything, the bulbs are burnt out and no one cares to replace them...the other half is that people don't even know their car has them or car to notice if they are not a headlamp style DRL.

[GumbyCT]

Originally Posted by PJH

DRL's are not required by state or federal laws... and DRL's are not approved when headlights are required. Headlights are

The point was people are driving with NO lights (when most cars today come w/DRL's) when lights are required by state law and that is not enforced either.

[PJH]

The point is that people are idiots and you can't have a cop every mile or block enforcing every traffic law.

You'd be surprised at how lacking police coverage (in general) is for the call volume and call priorities in the state and on the highways/towns.

We have towns that are close to 50 sq miles with over 10,000 people which are covered by one or two police officers overnight and two during all other shifts.

Kinda scary if you think about it.

[scanningisfun]

Originally Posted by PJH

We have towns that are close to 50 sq miles with over 10,000 people which are covered by one or two police officers overnight and two during all other shifts.

Sounds kinda like my town!

Jacob

[mrbun]

It says "...the use of a hand-held radio by a person with an amateur radio station license issued by the Federal Communications Commission,..."

Intent of the law seems to be saying it's OK to use your HT while driving, I get that.That is clear.

But, since a cellular phone is very much a hand-held radio, by the letter of the law as a licensed amateur radio operator I should not be prohibited from using my cell phone while driving.
--

[GumbyCT]

Me thinks the intent was to exempt licensed radio operators. Since (edited for clarification)
The exact quote says...

Originally Posted by GumbyCT

(4)Subdivision (1) of this subsection shall not apply to:<snip>...or (C) the use of a hand-held radio by a person with an amateur radio station license issued by the Federal Communications Commission, or (D) the use of a hands-free mobile telephone.

To be safe - I'll just stick with D but only when absolutely necessary.

Divided attention when driving is an increasingly serious problem whether it is eating, drinking, smoking, changing the radio station, just glancing at the GPS, even reading road signs, or just talking to a passenger, JMMO (Just My Meaningless Opinion).

[mrbun]

Originally Posted by GumbyCT

[FONT=Book Antiqua]

Divided attention when driving is an increasingly serious problem whether it is eating, drinking, smoking, changing the radio station, just glancing at the GPS, even reading road signs, or just talking to a passenger, JMMO (Just My Meaningless Opinion).

Very good point. Many folks have questionable driving skills without added distractions.

I've had 2 Meter radios in my vehicles since the early 80's and never had a radio-caused crash or incident. I knew when to sign off and pay more more attention to the road. I drove for a living for 28 years and saw everything in over 2.1 million miles of mostly CT highways. Never had an at-fault crash either.

My interpretation of that law is that since my cell phone is a two-way radio (full duplex) I am therefore exempt.

[wesct]

Originally Posted by russellmaher

I don't see the need to come up with an exemption to the current law, since the one we have on the books isn't enforced by any PD either state or local. Just watch and count (if you can) the number of cars on CT roads that have a driver with a phone device in use - either talking or texting, and you'll probably watch as a LE vehicle of some jurisdiction will just drive on by.

OK, I see that I've just highjacked your thread, I'm sorry cuz that wasn't my intention. Carry on!

I'll just skulk over to the rants forum and do this.

Russell

It just so happens that a Ham in your town was the main reason that the law was pushed thru so fast. He received two tickets in one week for using a cellphone while driving. Same attitude "Cell Phone or Ham Radio no difference"

Both tickets were thrown out after it was proven that he was not on a "Cell Phone" but was using Ham Radio at the time.

There's your history on this law.

[russellmaher]

Originally Posted by PJH

The point is that people are idiots and you can't have a cop every mile or block enforcing every traffic law.

You'd be surprised at how lacking police coverage (in general) is for the call volume and call priorities in the state and on the highways/towns.

We have towns that are close to 50 sq miles with over 10,000 people which are covered by one or two police officers overnight and two during all other shifts.

Kinda scary if you think about it.

I'm not saying that police officers aren't working hard and doing the best they can, and we know that 100% coverage at all hours of the day and night is an impossible dream, but let me try to expand on the point I was trying to make.

Remember in my post where I said that police officers will just drive by a vehicle when they can plainly see the driver is using a device to talk or text and there is a law on the books that makes that activity illegal. But they drive past and ignore the fact that a law is being broken. That being said....then consider the following scenario...which we have also seen on many occassions.

I am driving on the roadway guzzling from a can of beer and a police car (either state or local) passes by, and the officer sees me; how long will it take for him/her to swing that CVPI in behind me and take the proper action? I say "as quick as hitting the brake and turning the wheel."

So, I'm still left with the question...what's the difference between a cell phone and a can of beer? If they're both illegal, then why don't the cops stop offenders for both infractions?

And since I'm not a drinker nor a cell phone user (not when driving, anyway) I'm not worried about either one happening to me.

Russell

[jhooten]

Originally Posted by russellmaher

either talking or texting, and you'll probably watch as a LE vehicle of some jurisdiction will just drive on by.



Russell

While talking to dispatch on his hand held cell phone.