Is Mobile Use of CB Radios Becoming Illegal?

[mtindor]

I still have visions from many decades ago, a Des Plaines IL police car full lights and siren going, making a wide and wild right turn from my left, heading straight at me, my lane, wrong way, while the officer grappled for his mike and clipboard sliding on the dashboard.

Back when I was young and stupid (but certainly old enough to know better), I kept my Cobra on top of my dash with a small velcro strip. I was making a right turn onto an onramp, and the Cobra came loose and lodged between the dash and the steering wheel. I had nowhere to go but into the guardrail. Fortunately, there was nobody else around for me to hurt/kill, and I wasn't hurt. With the forward momentum and the car getting stuck in the groove between the pavement and the guardrail, it raked the side of my car from front to back. didn't look pretty. I learned my lesson from that.

Mike

 

[jhooten]

Not exactly. For example it is illegal to have an amplifier for the C.B. band unless you're a ham.

Yes exactly.
Nobody said any thing about having it in the car. If you have an amplifier connected to the CB radio in your car, since amplifiers are not permitted under the rules of the CB service rules, you can be charged with operating an illegal device, operating at a power greater than is allowed, and unlicensed operation.

If you are operating an "Export" or your modified amateur radio that is not Part 95 approved for use on CB frequencies you can be charges with operating a non-approved device and unlicensed operation.

Besides, how many people looking into your car will know what the radio under your dash is capable of?

First of all you do. Second all it takes it the one who responds to to the complaint of suspected illegal operation. Yes, the chances of getting caught are practically non-existent. But then there is the club member you had the run in with last week and knows you run a modified amateur radio on CB if you are lucky he may just pin your feed line. Or perhaps he rats you out causing an FCC tech guy to show up with a US Marshal, he will know. It has happened.

 

[GlobalNorth]

A couple of things come to mind here:

Federal preemption. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if a local or state law conflicts with Federal law, the Federal law preempts. Since state and local authorities cannot control the RF spectrum, it falls to the Federal government.

Policing today. With all the civil unrest and discord over law enforcement, few cops are going to bother stopping someone for using a two-way radio, no matter what the elected fools in Massachusetts want.

Errata. The FCC no longer prints and mails out licensing documents for GMRS, amateur, business, or other legitimate uses, so no cop is likely to waste their time stopping vehicles looking for the small percentage of people who still participate in the circus that is CB radio and who have no government issued license, permit, etc. Heck, most cops have likely never seen a FCC license and anyone with a computer and decent printer could whip up something that says that the bearer of the document is the sole licensee and authorized to broadcast on the frequencies of 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz.

Don't obsess over the unenforceable.

 

[MUTNAV]

Emergency services folks have no special training either. Just years of practice. There is no special training that can teach you how to multi-task (well...there's really no such thing, but that's for the Psychology forum). It's something your brain has to learn through practice. Do they have more practice using a radio and driving than an average civilian? I don't know...maybe. Vs. say a long distance truck driver, or some ham radio operators who love talking about their bowels for 12 hours straight while driving wherever, I doubt it.

These distracted driving laws are an attempt to generate revenue, while providing some sort of false war on the distracted driver front. Scientists have proven over and over and over again that it is not holding a device or fiddling with a device, it's simply the act of holding a conversation, listening to the radio, etc. Even holding a conversation with other passengers is just as unsafe, statistically.

If you're looking to prevent texting (which is also indeed very unsafe), then you make exceptions for anything that isn't a cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc., i.e. two-way radios. You can't say that hands-free is okay, yet talking on a ham radio while holding the microphone is not, because statistically, there is no difference.

At one point Aviation Week published a really good article that analyzed how things can distract pilots, it was called Fatal Distractions (I think) but is now behind a pay-wall, actually a well thought out analytical article.

The classic distraction is being called on the radio when they should be putting the gear down, the pilot gets distracted and moves to the next step, never putting the gear down.

Thanks
Joel

 

[mmckenna]

-major edit…-

I typed out a long thing, then realized it was much simpler:

Be responsible.
If an individual has any sense of responsibility, they will see that not letting yourself be distracted while driving is important, and comes way before playing radio, messing with the satellite radio, looking up directions on their phone, texting, etc.

But we have/had/always will have a segment of the population that cannot/will not take that responsibility.

So, we have to have laws. Yes, it would be ideal if we could just rely on individual responsibility, but we know we can't. And it's not everyone + all the time. It's some people, some of the time and a few people all of the time. But as we know, it just takes on ignorant person to wreck something for everyone else.

 

[GlobalNorth]

I understand your point, but how many cops know what an actual license looks like and the difference between GMRS, FRS, MURS, etc? Not a lot. The overwhelming majority of cops have never seen a FCC license and even if they did, they cannot compel you to provide one on demand. The FCC can, but the FBI, NYPD, CHP can't.

"Distracted driving" is the new term for urine-poor / lack of driving skills. Can't stay in a lane? There's an enumerated violation for that and for every other violation out there. The term "distracted driving" is legally so ambiguous that it is unenforceable. A law has to be distinct - such as failure to stop for a posted stop sign. One can know what the violation is and is not. Distracted driving could be anything from texting on a phone to mentally obsessing about anything. It is a nebulous definition and the law does not like nebulous.

 

[sallen07]

But we have/had/always will have a segment of the population that cannot/will not take that responsibility.

Good summary!

I think the one thing that HAS changed in the last 10 years or so is cell phone addiction. Yes, carrying on a long phone conversation when you should be focused on driving is a bad idea. (The whole "hands-free" thing really does nothing to address that issue though ... it's the fact that your attention is on the phone conversation, not that you are holding something in one hand and steering with the other!) But 10 years ago you didn't have this huge swath of the population that just HAS to know what every chirp and beep coming from their phone was. Did someone 'like' my latest post? Do I have a new subscriber? Did so-and-so respond to my nasty text? Am I getting outbid for that overpriced scanner on eBay?

It's not just those d--- kids either; plenty of older folks are just as bad.

 

[mmckenna]

I understand your point, but how many cops know what an actual license looks like and the difference between GMRS, FRS, MURS, etc? Not a lot. The overwhelming majority of cops have never seen a FCC license and even if they did, they cannot compel you to provide one on demand. The FCC can, but the FBI, NYPD, CHP can't.

They don't. It's not their job. Heck, I've run into a few officers that barely knew how to use their own radio.
But, carrying a copy of your own license is not hard to do, and may be all that's required to resolve a situation. No, no one is going to force you to carry it, but it's easy enough to print out your own off the FCC license manager page to just toss it in the glove box.

"Distracted driving" is the new term for urine-poor / lack of driving skills. Can't stay in a lane? There's an enumerated violation for that and for every other violation out there. The term "distracted driving" is legally so ambiguous that it is unenforceable. A law has to be distinct - such as failure to stop for a posted stop sign. One can know what the violation is and is not. Distracted driving could be anything from texting on a phone to mentally obsessing about anything. It is a nebulous definition and the law does not like nebulous.

I agree. However I do see some benefit in being able to legally pull over a driver if they are obviously having issues.

We wouldn't need most of the laws we currently have if individuals took responsibility for their own actions.
But we know there's a not insignificant portion of the population that cannot/will not do that.

I'd love to hear a solution to requiring some level of personal responsibility in society. Social media shaming hasn't seemed to have much impact.

 

[mmckenna]

I think the one thing that HAS changed in the last 10 years or so is cell phone addiction. …..

I took a step backwards when I purchased my current truck. It has no Bluetooth, no navigation, no car apps, nothing. AM/FM/CD player.

I've had a few people ask me how I can drive without those things. It's actually refreshingly easy. In fact, there are often times where I actually shut my phone off when I get in the truck. Works out really nicely.

It's not just those d--- kids either; plenty of older folks are just as bad.

I drove a vanpool van for many years, and before COVID, I rode a vanpool most days to/from work. That gave me the opportunity to see down into vehicles along the highway.
More often (maybe 75% of the time) the people texting while driving were people that appeared to be in their 30's, 40's and 50's. Older folks didn't seem to have the problem. Younger drivers seemed to be less likely to be doing it in my observations.

 

[GlobalNorth]

The most extreme example I can recall is how driving is viewed in Germany vs. the US.

Americans treat driving as a necessary chore and a license is a virtual right [it is not]. An operator license costs around two hours of minimum wages in the US and it can be obtained in hours.

In Germany, one must take classes in driving and first aid. One must pass a difficult written exam and a driving test. One must go to a physician for an eye examination. Paperwork for all this has to be submitted to the government as the process proceeds. Am applicant must test on a manual transmission auto and is then licensed for both manual and auto. If the test is done in an auto transmission vehicle, then the driver is restricted to auto transmission only. A license in Germany can cost thousands of dollars.

The end result is that most Germans treat driving much more seriously than the vast majority of Americans do.

 

[KK4JUG]

Exacerbating all this is the fact that we've become a very litigious society and juries seem to reward people for their stupidity, e.g., the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" incident.

 

[mmckenna]

The most extreme example I can recall is how driving is viewed in Germany vs. the US.
….
The end result is that most Germans treat driving much more seriously than the vast majority of Americans do.

Yep, surprisingly easy to get a non-commercial drivers license in the USA.

about 10 years ago I had to get my commercial drivers license for work. The testing involved in that should be what all drivers need to go through. Medical exam, signed documents saying I'd never been convicted of intoxicated driving, double points for infractions, hour long driving test with an inspector, including backing into loading docks and not hitting anything, periodic quizzing while driving about upcoming bridge clearances, what had happened in adjacent lanes, what was up ahead, what was behind me. After 20+ years of driving, I realized how little I knew. Taking those tests really changed how I drove, even in my own personal vehicle.

 

[mmckenna]

Exacerbating all this is the fact that we've become a very litigious society and juries seem to reward people for their stupidity, e.g., the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" incident.

There is some interesting realities behind that case, and it's not what many people assume.

But, yes, watching TV now shows you that there is a law firm out there ready to help you sue anyone for anything. Any medication you currently take, or have ever taken has a "specialty" legal firm that is ready to help you sue for any real or imagined side effect. And then we complain about the costs of medications and health care…. Legal firms will attempt to lure you in with the term "Cash Award" for your suffering. It's like they think everyone is owed something, and someone else will pay for it, all while the legal firms take a nice 50% off the top of your "award".

And then there are those that will wail about their "rights" but never once mention the responsibilities that come along with those rights.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

The most extreme example I can recall is how driving is viewed in Germany vs. the US.

Americans treat driving as a necessary chore and a license is a virtual right [it is not]. An operator license costs around two hours of minimum wages in the US and it can be obtained in hours.

In Germany, one must take classes in driving and first aid. One must pass a difficult written exam and a driving test. One must go to a physician for an eye examination. Paperwork for all this has to be submitted to the government as the process proceeds. Am applicant must test on a manual transmission auto and is then licensed for both manual and auto. If the test is done in an auto transmission vehicle, then the driver is restricted to auto transmission only. A license in Germany can cost thousands of dollars.

The end result is that most Germans treat driving much more seriously than the vast majority of Americans do.

We should have some sort of incentive licensing scheme. a basic license gives you 50 HP only surface streets. Anything above requiring hours of classroom training. I attended a Skip Barber school and the classroom Vehicular Dynamics session was immensely informative. Ask 99% of the drivers on the road to describe oversteer vs understeer and difference in handling a FWD vs RWD and you will get a blank stare.

 

[bill4long]

A couple of things come to mind here: Federal preemption. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if a local or state law conflicts with Federal law, the Federal law preempts. Since state and local authorities cannot control the RF spectrum, it falls to the Federal government.

Well, I hate to be the gadfly but the FCC has jurisdiction over RF transmitters in general. However, states can add additional regulations regarding radio usage. Particularly with regard to physical usage (where and when), and the content (what you can say, particularly things like harassment and intimidation.) This is well established federal case law.

(P.S. sidebar, while the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that doesn't mean that Congress or federal beauracracies trump states' rights every time or every close. Altogether separate issue from the topic. Just sayin'. Carry on.)

 

[alcahuete]

Well, I hate to be the gadfly but the FCC has jurisdiction over RF transmitters in general. However, states can add additional regulations regarding radio usage. Particularly with regard to physical usage (where and when), and the content (what you can say, particularly things like harassment and intimidation.) This is well established federal case law.

(P.S. sidebar, while the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that doesn't mean that Congress or federal beauracracies trump states' rights every time or every close. Altogether separate issue from the topic. Just sayin'. Carry on.)

It would be very easy for the FCC to issue a federal pre-emption for that as well, just as they have done in the past, but I'm certain it would not be for CB. It would be for amateur radio. The FCC just doesn't care about CB anymore, and rightfully so.

 

[GlobalNorth]

Well, I hate to be the gadfly but the FCC has jurisdiction over RF transmitters in general. However, states can add additional regulations regarding radio usage. Particularly with regard to physical usage (where and when), and the content (what you can say, particularly things like harassment and intimidation.) This is well established federal case law.

(P.S. sidebar, while the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that doesn't mean that Congress or federal beauracracies trump states' rights every time or every close. Altogether separate issue from the topic. Just sayin'. Carry on.)

Your analogy is not keeping the line with what Massachusetts law is attempting to do. The issue before us is can states dictate through law, what radio band may / may not be used by a motor vehicle operator while operating a motor vehicle.

“No person, when operating a motor vehicle, shall permit to be on or in the vehicle or on or about his person anything which may interfere with or impede the proper operation of the vehicle or any equipment by which the vehicle is operator or controlled, except that a person may operate a motor vehicle while using a federally licensed 2–way radio or mobile telephone, except as provided in sections 8M, 12A and 13B, as long as 1 hand remains on the steering wheel at all times.”

Sections 8M, 12A, and 13B should not apply to adult ham radio operators.

• Section 8M applies an absolute prohibition to use of mobile phones or other electronic device by persons under 18.
• Section 12A applies an absolute prohibition to use of mobile phones or other electronic device by persons involved in public transportation (i.e., public buses and ferries).
• Section 13B applies an absolute prohibition to composing, sending, or reading electronic messages while operating a motor vehicle for all operators.

This law is very poorly written and enforcement is going to be very difficult to perform for the police officer tasked with dealing with it.

This law and what is before us, as enumerated above, is the sole issue and has to be addressed as given, not by addition of variables.

 

[slowmover]

Laws with loopholes (vagueness) is the solution for the criminals who adjudicate.

Radio (despite bureaucrats) is First Amendment-protected. Government can’t legislate.

Gores the big boys ox, doesn’t it?

Arguments about “national security”, etc are fig-leafs for your underwriting their criminal activities. And being barred from same (handy, huh?).

Laws which appear to “solve” a problem (created expressly for the purpose) are back doors favoring insiders. Incentive.

Fourth Amendment covets the rest. Did you consent to having all US Mail, telephone calls, and other forms of communication hoovered up and permanently stored?

One is equal in standing, or he isn’t.

How to make Radio workable is not in the hands of a neutral party, (assigning government that role), but in the failure of citizens to answer to one another.

No such thing as a government agency not eventually being used by insiders to their own benefit.

Voluntary associations is how everything from hospitals to churches to schools got built.

A stretch of water crossing or touching many property-lines is an example. Flow diversion or pollution, the antagonisms.

Capturing the National agency merely makes easy the coup (against other citizens).

You are the government.

The binding document (the Constitution) was made simple for this very reason.

Politics and Religion were the favored discussions in taverns, hotels (later, trains) as America was being built. It was (is) central to being an American.

Man up.

That day is back.

.

 

[DoctorZ]

We didn't have an issue?
Or we didn't keep track of that stuff?

Remember, this was a time when people had some pretty stupid ideas about wearing seatbelts and wearing motorcycle helmets.

They were more concerned about drunk driving in those days; that was the big statistic being politicized. However, they did keep records on contributing factors to vehicle crashes. One of the more interesting facts discovered was that in over 80% of Semi-Truck crashes it was someone doing something stupid in a CAR that caused the crash.

Let's not forget that the incidents that brought cell phone use into the crash picture nationwide was NOT because of vehicle traffic. It was caused by railroad engineers texting and missing warning signs along the way which led to some really horrible crashes, not drivers of personal or professional vehicles.

As for motorcycle helmets back in the 1960's and 1970's they were required by law. Biker Gangs lobbied Congress and got the helmet law removed in exchange for always having their bike's head-light on. There are still plenty of States that don't have helmet laws for adults.

 

[DoctorZ]

-major edit…-

I typed out a long thing, then realized it was much simpler:

Be responsible.
If an individual has any sense of responsibility, they will see that not letting yourself be distracted while driving is important, and comes way before playing radio, messing with the satellite radio, looking up directions on their phone, texting, etc.

But we have/had/always will have a segment of the population that cannot/will not take that responsibility.

So, we have to have laws. Yes, it would be ideal if we could just rely on individual responsibility, but we know we can't. And it's not everyone + all the time. It's some people, some of the time and a few people all of the time. But as we know, it just takes on ignorant person to wreck something for everyone else.

On the flip-side of your point, we have people like me who either drive for a living or drive long distances for whatever reason and become fatigued and sleepy. Many times you cannot just pull over or get a fix from taking a hit of caffeine. It's those times that picking up the mic and finding a conversation over the radio that keeps you awake and alert while driving.

If you're going to try and make a point against talking on the 2-way being distracting, then you might as well outlaw passengers in your vehicle because talking to them, which also encourages you to take your eyes off the road to look their way, is even more distracting.