In parenthesis above I meant to say "and it was NPS policy."
Cellphone law?
- Thread starter Delivers1234
- Start date
- Status
In parenthesis above I meant to say "and it was NPS policy."
Take a look at CVC 23103. It paints with a pretty broad brush but it can cover a lot of area. I recall one of our drivers getting it for reading a map or something while he was driving.
Trust me, I would if I could. This place is nuttier than squirrel $#!t.
Or, maybe I'll just wait till the country splits up, and hope my area ends up on the normal side. :lol:
Delta
sdmichael
Newbie
I work for DMV and have spoken with CHP at our office. They,the CHP, stated it does not apply to ham/cb, at least with a handheld microphone. Using an HT without a separate microphone may be more of an issue, certainly from perception due to its size. Yes, the law could have been worded better, but it still does not apply in this case.
Alain
Member
This was sent to me from a fellow ham radio op in the Sacramento Valley Section of the ARRL.
"I am communicating with you in this fashion to advise you of a new law that was passed and implemented by the California State Legislature that, effective January 1, 2017, makes it illegal to use any sort of mobile device while driving, unless it is "blue toothed" enabled, and was installed as part of the vehicles equipment as it left the factory. This would include amateur and commercial mobile radio operations. The simple use of picking up and keying a push to talk microphone while driving would now be considered a violation of this new law.
I am referring to Calif. Assembly Bill 1785, the full text of which appears below. When it was initially drafted, this bill pertained only to cell phone usage. During its journey through the legislative process, it went through a number of rewrites and amendments, such that we are now saddled with a new law that prohibits all mobile operations (amateur and commercial) while driving.
The first violation/citation carries with it a $20.00 fine. The second violation would be $50.00. At this time, it is unknown if the receipt of any citation for violation of this new law would affect your drivers license record, or insurance rates. An amateur radio operator using his mobile radio in Palo Alto, has already received a citation for violating this law.
Initial contacts will several Chiefs of Police in various jurisdictions though out California have given us feedback that is all over the map, ranging from "we are going to enforce it," to "we won't bother." The CHP position on this is to apparently enforce the law at the officer's discretion."
"I am communicating with you in this fashion to advise you of a new law that was passed and implemented by the California State Legislature that, effective January 1, 2017, makes it illegal to use any sort of mobile device while driving, unless it is "blue toothed" enabled, and was installed as part of the vehicles equipment as it left the factory. This would include amateur and commercial mobile radio operations. The simple use of picking up and keying a push to talk microphone while driving would now be considered a violation of this new law.
I am referring to Calif. Assembly Bill 1785, the full text of which appears below. When it was initially drafted, this bill pertained only to cell phone usage. During its journey through the legislative process, it went through a number of rewrites and amendments, such that we are now saddled with a new law that prohibits all mobile operations (amateur and commercial) while driving.
The first violation/citation carries with it a $20.00 fine. The second violation would be $50.00. At this time, it is unknown if the receipt of any citation for violation of this new law would affect your drivers license record, or insurance rates. An amateur radio operator using his mobile radio in Palo Alto, has already received a citation for violating this law.
Initial contacts will several Chiefs of Police in various jurisdictions though out California have given us feedback that is all over the map, ranging from "we are going to enforce it," to "we won't bother." The CHP position on this is to apparently enforce the law at the officer's discretion."
With all the stress over not being able to push a button while driving, I may have to buy an ounce of legal smokable drugs to calm my nerves...
A palm mic operation is less complicated than changing the radio station on your car stereo...when was the last time you were forced to stare ay your palm mic while operating it? HAMs with numeric keypad mics do not respond please.
Paul
A palm mic operation is less complicated than changing the radio station on your car stereo...when was the last time you were forced to stare ay your palm mic while operating it? HAMs with numeric keypad mics do not respond please.
Paul
Yeah, isn't it amazing how governments prioritize things?
Alain
Member
The ham radio community in the Sact'o Valley have decided to formulate an "on line" petition in order to gauge the concern of other hams. I am enclosing the link here, with the sole intention of offering you, the reader, the opportunity of its perusal and edification...
https://www.change.org/p/california...re-immersive-v-passive-devices?recruiter=1701 8523&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
https://www.change.org/p/california...re-immersive-v-passive-devices?recruiter=1701 8523&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
ke6gcv
Member
I wouldn't wave an ARRL article in front of a judge (or anyone else's comments who decided to "weigh in")
Legislation is what needs to be updated. Opinions are only worth...........
Legislation is what needs to be updated. Opinions are only worth...........
One thing that occurs to me as a way around this, is to get into the guts of my microphone and wire in a footswitch and auxiliary microphone. Then I can PTT and speak toward the auxiliary microphone and transmit, which avoids a CHP enforcement action.
Of course, I can't use the keypad, but I can pull over on those increasingly rare occasions when I need to do that.
Of course, I can't use the keypad, but I can pull over on those increasingly rare occasions when I need to do that.
I have an update from Assemblymember Quirk's office. A new bill has been put forward to undo the damage of AB 1785.
Response as follows:
Thank you for taking the time to email our office regarding your questions on the implementation of AB 1785 (Quirk, 2016) that deals with curtailing distracted driving.
We have been looking into your concerns for several weeks.
The intent of the bill was always to address a deficiency in current law regarding allowable activities with smartphones while driving. I am attaching a fact sheet and letter to the governor to show that.
I know there have been questions regarding the definition of “electronic wireless communications device” found in Section 23123.5(f) of the Vehicle Code.
I have been in discussions with the California Highway Patrol (CHP)and the California Police Chiefs Association who played a critical role in helping us move AB 1785 last year.
I would like to update you on where we are with cleaning up or clarifying the language in Vehicle Code Section 23123.5(f).
First, CHP believes that the intent of the bill was to curtail distracted driving caused by the use of smartphones while driving that extend beyond texting and calling. CHP does not believe that the language in the vehicle code applies to the use of handheld-amateur radio devices. CHP plans to issue a statewide directive that details their official interpretation of the law. I do not have an estimated date for when that will become public. I have been told that it’s a priority for CHP and should be avialable soon. I am happy to email that to you when it becomes available.
Second, we are working to submit a Letter to the Journal. The Assembly Journal serves as official record of the legislative intent behind bills that we pass. This letter will further serve as official record of what Assemblymember Quirk’s intent was with AB 1785 – what activities he meant to curtail while people are driving, what technologies this does and does not apply to. As soon as this letter becomes publicly available, I will be glad to send that to you.
Third, we are discussions with CHP, the Police Chiefs and a group of stakeholders regarding the need to update the language. Some of you have sent me suggested edits, and I thank you for that. We are reviewing this with CHP. Assemblymember Quirk has expressed that he will not author a bill that law enforcement is not comfortable with. We introduced AB 1222 as a placeholder as we negotiate and work on language.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hestiate to reach out to me.
Thank you.
TOMASA DUEÑAS
Chief of Staff
Assembly Member Bill Quirk (D-20)
CHAIR – Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials (ESTM) Committee
State Capitol Room 2163
Sacramento, CA 95814
P: 916.319.2020
F: 916.319.2120
www.assembly.ca.gov/Quirk
Response as follows:
Thank you for taking the time to email our office regarding your questions on the implementation of AB 1785 (Quirk, 2016) that deals with curtailing distracted driving.
We have been looking into your concerns for several weeks.
The intent of the bill was always to address a deficiency in current law regarding allowable activities with smartphones while driving. I am attaching a fact sheet and letter to the governor to show that.
I know there have been questions regarding the definition of “electronic wireless communications device” found in Section 23123.5(f) of the Vehicle Code.
I have been in discussions with the California Highway Patrol (CHP)and the California Police Chiefs Association who played a critical role in helping us move AB 1785 last year.
I would like to update you on where we are with cleaning up or clarifying the language in Vehicle Code Section 23123.5(f).
First, CHP believes that the intent of the bill was to curtail distracted driving caused by the use of smartphones while driving that extend beyond texting and calling. CHP does not believe that the language in the vehicle code applies to the use of handheld-amateur radio devices. CHP plans to issue a statewide directive that details their official interpretation of the law. I do not have an estimated date for when that will become public. I have been told that it’s a priority for CHP and should be avialable soon. I am happy to email that to you when it becomes available.
Second, we are working to submit a Letter to the Journal. The Assembly Journal serves as official record of the legislative intent behind bills that we pass. This letter will further serve as official record of what Assemblymember Quirk’s intent was with AB 1785 – what activities he meant to curtail while people are driving, what technologies this does and does not apply to. As soon as this letter becomes publicly available, I will be glad to send that to you.
Third, we are discussions with CHP, the Police Chiefs and a group of stakeholders regarding the need to update the language. Some of you have sent me suggested edits, and I thank you for that. We are reviewing this with CHP. Assemblymember Quirk has expressed that he will not author a bill that law enforcement is not comfortable with. We introduced AB 1222 as a placeholder as we negotiate and work on language.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hestiate to reach out to me.
Thank you.
TOMASA DUEÑAS
Chief of Staff
Assembly Member Bill Quirk (D-20)
CHAIR – Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials (ESTM) Committee
State Capitol Room 2163
Sacramento, CA 95814
P: 916.319.2020
F: 916.319.2120
www.assembly.ca.gov/Quirk
Not if the legislature cleans up their mistake.
Now that would be a first! An legislative body actually fixing anything, especially in CA, IL, NY and certain other states, not to mention the U. S. Congress.... This will just get more effed! LEAs will just be so confused they will ticket you for looking like you were thinking about touching something distracting, or will just say eff it and not enforce any part of this. This won't be fixed until someone with lots of time and money gets ticketed or jailed and can fight it out in the courts for ten years. That's the reality of things nowadays! I am waiting for Town A to cite an LEO from Agency X for holding up his mobile radio mic and PTTing an call in... Or PTTing his shoulder mic while driving which we ALL see on an daily basis!
mkewman
Member
CBS13 did a story on this, as well with official comments from CHP:
Two-Way Radio Users Worried California’s Cellphone Ban Is Too Broad « CBS Sacramento
Two-Way Radio Users Worried California’s Cellphone Ban Is Too Broad « CBS Sacramento
Kc6iih
Newbie
Cell phone law
The new California cell phone use during driving is fuzzy.
The California Highway Patrol has stated they will not stop or ticket amateur radio users if you a using a wired michrophone.
For cell phones and scanners they haven't said anything.
The new California cell phone use during driving is fuzzy.
The California Highway Patrol has stated they will not stop or ticket amateur radio users if you a using a wired michrophone.
For cell phones and scanners they haven't said anything.
The following was sent by Richard Norton, ARRL Southwest Division Director:
Here’s an update on California’s new hands-free driving law with a
little background for reference.
The prior version of Vehicle Code Section 23123.5, while it contained
no specific exemption for Amateur radio, effectively excluded Hams by
virtue of the relatively narrow definitions of what that law covered.
Assembly Bill 1785 was introduced in February 2016 by Hayward Assembly
Member Bill Quirk, whose district lies in the Pacific Division. In its
initial form, there was no adverse impact to Amateur Radio, as it
applied only to reading, writing and sending text-based communications.
Over the ensuing six months, however, the language was amended five
times, with the end result being much broader in scope and including a
prohibition of “specialized mobile radio device” that were not
hands-free. This opened the door to widely varying interpretations of
what might fall under the umbrella of “specialized mobile radio
device”.
We were first alerted to this bill by San Diego Section Manager Dave
Kaltenborn, N8KBC, in September, by which time it had been passed by
both houses in its final form and was less than a week from being
signed into law by the governor. Vice Director Woll tried direct
outreach to Quirk’s office and to other potentially interested
parties such as the California Trucking Association, but he received no
responses. As this newsworthy change in the law began getting broadcast
airtime, ARRL Division and Section officials started receiving many
inquiries from concerned members. Woll contacted several of our local
Volunteer Counsel attorneys, who did some research. In addition to
getting the complete legislative history of the bill, we eventually
obtained a statement from a staff member of the Assembly Transportation
Committee that the intent was not to include Amateur Radio and the
absence of some exclusionary language was an oversight. Meanwhile,
private and public statements from members of both law enforcement and
the judiciary were coming out with adverse interpretations for Amateur
Radio, adding to the level of member consternation and validating our
initial concerns.
State government officials will generally not engage in communication
with voters outside their respective districts. An exception may be
made, however, if the voter’s own representative makes an
“introduction”. Now-retired Volunteer Counsel Len Shaffer, WA6QHD
(Palmdale case attorney), requested and received such an introduction
and was then able to schedule a meeting in Sacramento for himself and
Vice Director Woll with Quirk’s legislative deputy. That meeting
took place on Tuesday, March 14, 2017, and future action looks
promising.
Woll and Shaffer came armed with specific documentation of inconsistent
interpretations, including names, dates and contact information, and the
deputy appreciated this level of detail. She advised us that her office
had already been approached by lobbyists for several non-Amateur
interests which also saw the new law as a threat to mobile radio
communications. Their proposed solutions, however, were
industry-specific or employment-based, none of which would protect
Amateur Radio. We discussed the kinds of public service work Hams do
that would be adversely impacted without some form of exemption, and
she agreed that broader exclusionary language would be more appropriate
than individual carve-outs.
As to the mechanics, we suggested a letter from Quirk to the state
government’s Legislative Journal clarifying the legislative intent.
That would provide more immediate defense for mobile radio users than
would an amending bill, which is in the works (AB-1222) but would not
take effect until 2018. She told us that such a letter is being
developed and agreed to advise us when it is ready to go. We also
suggested adding clarifying language to the Committee‘s omnibus bill.
The deputy said they would consider doing so but that some procedural
pitfalls could eliminate that route.
Finally, the California Highway Patrol is expected to disseminate
guidance within a month or two. Through a Ham contact at the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s office, Vice Director Woll had already
received a preliminary version of that guidance. It states that using
wired radio microphones would not be considered a violation but that
using hand-held radios would be cause for a citation. If the final CHP
guidance comes to a similar conclusion, it will be a less-than-perfect
but, in our judgment, somewhat acceptable conclusion. The deputy also
promised to advise us when that interpretation is issued in final form.
Of course, CHP guidance will not filter down to all law enforcement
agencies in the state, so citations by local police may still occur,
and authoritative evidence of legislative intent will still be
important for any Amateur who has to challenge a citation in court.
>From the above, it appears that no grass-roots action is needed at this
time. However, until and unless we receive authoritative guidance to
the contrary, we advise against using handheld radios while driving
unless they are equipped with external, corded microphones. As always,
avoid any radio usage or other activity whenever you feel it detracts
from your ability to control your vehicle fully or to maintain
awareness of surrounding traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This seems to be as clear an explanation of the current situation as I have seen. Clearly there is a lot of clean up that needs to be done. However, within limits, hams are probably in the clear for now.
Here’s an update on California’s new hands-free driving law with a
little background for reference.
The prior version of Vehicle Code Section 23123.5, while it contained
no specific exemption for Amateur radio, effectively excluded Hams by
virtue of the relatively narrow definitions of what that law covered.
Assembly Bill 1785 was introduced in February 2016 by Hayward Assembly
Member Bill Quirk, whose district lies in the Pacific Division. In its
initial form, there was no adverse impact to Amateur Radio, as it
applied only to reading, writing and sending text-based communications.
Over the ensuing six months, however, the language was amended five
times, with the end result being much broader in scope and including a
prohibition of “specialized mobile radio device
hands-free. This opened the door to widely varying interpretations of
what might fall under the umbrella of “specialized mobile radio
device
We were first alerted to this bill by San Diego Section Manager Dave
Kaltenborn, N8KBC, in September, by which time it had been passed by
both houses in its final form and was less than a week from being
signed into law by the governor. Vice Director Woll tried direct
outreach to Quirk’s office and to other potentially interested
parties such as the California Trucking Association, but he received no
responses. As this newsworthy change in the law began getting broadcast
airtime, ARRL Division and Section officials started receiving many
inquiries from concerned members. Woll contacted several of our local
Volunteer Counsel attorneys, who did some research. In addition to
getting the complete legislative history of the bill, we eventually
obtained a statement from a staff member of the Assembly Transportation
Committee that the intent was not to include Amateur Radio and the
absence of some exclusionary language was an oversight. Meanwhile,
private and public statements from members of both law enforcement and
the judiciary were coming out with adverse interpretations for Amateur
Radio, adding to the level of member consternation and validating our
initial concerns.
State government officials will generally not engage in communication
with voters outside their respective districts. An exception may be
made, however, if the voter’s own representative makes an
“introduction”. Now-retired Volunteer Counsel Len Shaffer, WA6QHD
(Palmdale case attorney), requested and received such an introduction
and was then able to schedule a meeting in Sacramento for himself and
Vice Director Woll with Quirk’s legislative deputy. That meeting
took place on Tuesday, March 14, 2017, and future action looks
promising.
Woll and Shaffer came armed with specific documentation of inconsistent
interpretations, including names, dates and contact information, and the
deputy appreciated this level of detail. She advised us that her office
had already been approached by lobbyists for several non-Amateur
interests which also saw the new law as a threat to mobile radio
communications. Their proposed solutions, however, were
industry-specific or employment-based, none of which would protect
Amateur Radio. We discussed the kinds of public service work Hams do
that would be adversely impacted without some form of exemption, and
she agreed that broader exclusionary language would be more appropriate
than individual carve-outs.
As to the mechanics, we suggested a letter from Quirk to the state
government’s Legislative Journal clarifying the legislative intent.
That would provide more immediate defense for mobile radio users than
would an amending bill, which is in the works (AB-1222) but would not
take effect until 2018. She told us that such a letter is being
developed and agreed to advise us when it is ready to go. We also
suggested adding clarifying language to the Committee‘s omnibus bill.
The deputy said they would consider doing so but that some procedural
pitfalls could eliminate that route.
Finally, the California Highway Patrol is expected to disseminate
guidance within a month or two. Through a Ham contact at the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s office, Vice Director Woll had already
received a preliminary version of that guidance. It states that using
wired radio microphones would not be considered a violation but that
using hand-held radios would be cause for a citation. If the final CHP
guidance comes to a similar conclusion, it will be a less-than-perfect
but, in our judgment, somewhat acceptable conclusion. The deputy also
promised to advise us when that interpretation is issued in final form.
Of course, CHP guidance will not filter down to all law enforcement
agencies in the state, so citations by local police may still occur,
and authoritative evidence of legislative intent will still be
important for any Amateur who has to challenge a citation in court.
>From the above, it appears that no grass-roots action is needed at this
time. However, until and unless we receive authoritative guidance to
the contrary, we advise against using handheld radios while driving
unless they are equipped with external, corded microphones. As always,
avoid any radio usage or other activity whenever you feel it detracts
from your ability to control your vehicle fully or to maintain
awareness of surrounding traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This seems to be as clear an explanation of the current situation as I have seen. Clearly there is a lot of clean up that needs to be done. However, within limits, hams are probably in the clear for now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked