• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

New Cell Phone Law Ends Ham Hands Two-Way Ops in Cars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
2,478
Location
NJ USA (Republic of NJ)
#2
Any web links to read the actual wording to this law?

I'm guessing that all emergency responders(pd,fire & ems) are exemt. Thats usually how these things go.

Next thing you know you'll need a permit to urinate in your own home. :)
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,058
#3
This law turns on the definition of 'wireless telephone', which is undefined by the law itself.

Everything IN the law and resultant vechicle code regulation talks about PHONE calls, including in the exemption for trucks and commercial, which talks about 'digtial wireless phones with push to talk features that do not require them to be held to the ear to hear' (AKA Nextel push to talk service).

What it all comes down to, is the California Attorney General and the CHP must come up with a definition of 'what the heck did the legislature mean?', enforce it, then deal with court cases defining it 'legally' when they're challenged.

If the CaAG or CHP choose not to consider every two way radio in the world to be covered (are they going to cite every taxicab in the state?), only 'wireless TELEPHONES', it may never come close to ham radio.

When the CHP FAQ talks about what's acceptable, this is seen: However, a push-to-talk feature attached to a hands-free ear piece or other hands-free device is acceptable.

That would be the definition of a normal handie talkie or two way radio. What they're saying you can't have is something that you must hold to your ear to HEAR.

The actual CHP Faq:

http://www.chp.ca.gov/pdf/media/cell_phone_faq.pdf

Relevant California Vehicle Code Sections:

23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving.
(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a
base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty
dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless
telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an
emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider,
fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.
(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services
professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized
emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and
scope of his or her duties.
(e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital
two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by
depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate
proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of
the following vehicles:
(1) (A) A motor truck, as defined in Section 410, or a truck
tractor, as defined in Section 655, that requires either a commercial
class A or class B driver's license to operate.
(B) The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a
person driving a pickup truck, as defined in Section 471.
(2) An implement of husbandry that is listed or described in
Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 36000) of Division 16.
(3) A farm vehicle that is exempt from registration and displays
an identification plate as specified in Section 5014 and is listed in
Section 36101.
(4) A commercial vehicle, as defined in Section 260, that is
registered to a farmer and driven by the farmer or an employee of the
farmer, and is used in conducting commercial agricultural
operations, including, but not limited to, transporting agricultural
products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to, or from, a farm.
(5) A tow truck, as defined in Section 615.
(f) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or
transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.
(g) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor
vehicle on private property.
(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008, and shall
remain in effect only until July 1, 2011, and, as of July 1, 2011,
is repealed.


23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving.
(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a
base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty
dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless
telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an
emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider,
fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.
(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services
professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized
emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and
scope of his or her duties.
(e) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or
transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.
(f) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor
vehicle on private property.
(g) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.



23124. (a) This section applies to a person under the age of 18
years.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 23123, a person described in
subdivision (a) shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone, even if equipped with a hands-free device, or
while using a mobile service device.
(c) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a
base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty
dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(d) A law enforcement officer shall not stop a vehicle for the
sole purpose of determining whether the driver is violating
subdivision (b).
(e) Subdivision (d) does not prohibit a law enforcement officer
from stopping a vehicle for a violation of Section 23123.
(f) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless
telephone or a mobile service device for emergency purposes,
including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement
agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency
services agency or entity.
(g) For the purposes of this section, "mobile service device"
includes, but is not limited to, a broadband personal communication
device, specialized mobile radio device, handheld device or laptop
computer with mobile data access, pager, and two-way messaging
device.
(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008.




23125. (a) A person may not drive a schoolbus or transit vehicle,
as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 99247 of the Public
Utilities Code, while using a wireless telephone.
(b) This section does not apply to a driver using a wireless
telephone for work-related purposes, or for emergency purposes,
including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement
agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency
service agency or entity.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of
subdivision (a) does not constitute a serious traffic violation
within the meaning of subdivision (i) of Section 15210.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
816
Location
Corbett, OR USA
#5
The California legislators and the state Atty General seem to have a lot of time on their hands creating and interpreting BS legislation.
It would seem that the use of two-way radios and wireless phones would take a back seat to other pressing issues.

for instance:
There are millions of illegal aliens residing in their state.
Perhaps they should take a day or two addressing that issue.
But that wouldn't be PC, would it?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
#6
mikepdx said:
The California legislators and the state Atty General seem to have a lot of time on their hands creating and interpreting BS legislation.
It would seem that the use of two-way radios and wireless phones would take a back seat to other pressing issues.
Just maybe they have statistics avaialable that show an alarming increase of traffic accidents and violations where cellphone use is a factor. If that's the case, then this would seem to be a reasonable response.

I've certainly noticed that, while I'm out and about driving, people seem to be running more red lights, not paying attention to what's next to them when they change lanes, driving WAY too fast, etc. etc... the common thread? They all are talking on a cellphone.

Do I think the law will help? Of course not. But I can't say as I blame the legislators in trying to do SOMETHING. And I have yet to hear a better idea.

As to whether or not it applies to ham radio, the law appears to specifically name "wireless telephones". If I end up with a ticket, the fine is $20. I'll just add that to the total cost of outfitting the radios in the car with a headset. This is SOOO not a big deal.
 

gmclam

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
5,289
Location
Fair Oaks, CA
#8
California drivers

zz0468 said:
Just maybe they have statistics avaialable that show an alarming increase of traffic accidents and violations where cellphone use is a factor. If that's the case, then this would seem to be a reasonable response.
This law is not going to make the situation any better when it comes to inattentive drivers in California. I consider this law to be equivalent of the "law" that shut down Napster. People thought Napster was to blame, but it was the illegal downloading. Here, people are blaming the phones! It is not the phone, and not even the physical holding of the phone. It is the "distraction" in the brain of drivers in which the phone causes.

Some of us have grown up using 2-ways, or other multi-tasking while we are at home or driving. Others, especially those "new" to this, are hardly able to drive when they give that 100% of their attention; let alone while talking or texting. Right now when there is a "bad driver" we can all look over and see ".. oh they are on their cell". But once the law takes effect, in theory, we will only see them talking (unless a lone driver and/or you're able to see the BlueTooth device in their ear).

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'd like this specific law struck down. What will work much better is a law that TRIPLES the fine for any (moving) violation in which the driver is (also) engaged in a (cell) phone conversation. I'd have no problem in extending that law to include hams. Keep in mind, you can't just be cited for talking; you'd have to commit a (moving) violation.

Yeah there are a lot of there things that need attention too like illegal immigrants and drivers w/o a license; but there's a whole lot of traffic issues out there being ignored. In California, ironically, I blame this on the fact the CHP now has RADAR. They used to find/cite bad drivers; now they are content to set up "sweeps" of drivers over a certain speed. Their actions of mostly looking for DUIs, set belt violators and speeders has not made the roads safer IMO.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
816
Location
Corbett, OR USA
#9
gmclam said:
Here, people are blaming the phones! It is not the phone, and not even the physical holding of the phone. It is the "distraction" in the brain of drivers in which the phone causes.
Exactly.

Although, it seems to me, we don't need yet another law.
We already have one on the books that covers this, and many other situations, including
eating while driving, reading maps while driving, swatting brats while driving, falling asleep while driving, or simply daydreaming.
If any of these and a myriad of other distractions result in an accident, it's:
Failure to maintain control of your vehicle.

Shall we outlaw each and every conceivable driving distraction we can think of?
If we do, well endowed women might just make the top of that list...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top