North Carolina radio amateurs win exclusion from cellphone ban

[W9GC]

NC radio amateurs win exclusion from cellphone ban

http://www.southgatearc.org/news/february2009/mobile_phone_ban.htm

North Carolina lawmakers are again considering a ban on cell phone use while driving, but Amateur Radio operators in the state would be specifically exempted, thanks to an amendment requested by Bob Conder K4RLC, the ARRL State Government Liaison officer.

The bill was debated on Tuesday by the state Senate Commerce Committee. State Senator William Purcell, a co-sponsor of the bill, told Conder that Amateur Radio was already exempt because it wasn't covered by the definition of "mobile phone". Conder asked for a specific exemption anyway, fearing that law enforcement officers on the street wouldn't make the distinction between a cell phone and ham radio.

The amendment, which reads "This term does not include two-way mobile radio transmitters or receivers used by licensees of the Federal Communications Commission in the Amateur Radio Service" was accepted without discussion.

During committee debate, one Senator did ask if the bill would cover Nextel style "push-to-talk" - operation that is similar to Amateur Radio. After that concept was explained to some senators who didn't understand it, the bill's sponsor said it "probably would" be included in the ban.

Similar bills have been introduced in North Carolina over the past few years, and all have been defeated or died in committee. A similar fate is expected for this bill, but last year the state did enact a ban for drivers under 18.

 

[newsphotog]

Iowa is struggling with a similar bill right now:

Story #1: Mobile Ham Radio under attack? - Des Moines Radio Amateurs' Association
Story #2, latest follow-up: Status of H.F. 9 Legislation - Des Moines Radio Amateurs' Association

One of the legislator's aides, as noted in the follow-up story, said the bill has been modified to specifically exempt amateur radio operators. However, apparently no one has seen the modified bill and no further actions on the bill have been listed on the state website, so I will believe it when I see it. It looks like the bill hasn't made it out of committee yet, but legislators keep talking about the bill has "teeth."

 

[Metrofire31]

As a resident of Atlanta, I regularly experience some of the most intense traffic overload in our nation. It is made worse by drivers who are talking or texting on their cell phones. I am all in favor of some kind of legislation to stop this. However - and I am NOT an attorney - I do worry about several issues:

1. At this point, how enforceable is it? We don't have enough law enforcement officers to curtail this because Atlanta drivers have demonstrated their total lack of respect for the laws governing traffic signals, stop signs, not driving across gores and other solid lines, etc. Heck, the 55 MPH speed limit on I-285 is the best example I know of a law enforcement joke of a law

2. I can appreciate all the amateur radio operators taking care of the exclusion in the NC bill but why is amateur radio any less distracting to the driver than a cell phone? What about I-PODs, the car stereo, satelitte radio, car DVD players, lighting your cigarette from the car's lighter, etc., etc.

At some point, it's the driver's responsibility to maintain proper control of their vehicle. It's my belief that you don't start singling out specifc technologies or acts to punish drivers because they all CAN be dangerous and distracting. You simply make the punishment severe enough that if FOR ANY REASON the driver is distracted and causes an accident, the punishment will be severe and ultimately will act as a deterrent.

Oh, by the way, what about the folks who drive with their left leg folded up under them? Or what about women who drive while applying their makeup? Where does it end???

 

[newsphotog]

As a resident of Atlanta, I regularly experience some of the most intense traffic overload in our nation. It is made worse by drivers who are talking or texting on their cell phones. I am all in favor of some kind of legislation to stop this. However - and I am NOT an attorney - I do worry about several issues:

1. At this point, how enforceable is it? We don't have enough law enforcement officers to curtail this because Atlanta drivers have demonstrated their total lack of respect for the laws governing traffic signals, stop signs, not driving across gores and other solid lines, etc. Heck, the 55 MPH speed limit on I-285 is the best example I know of a law enforcement joke of a law

2. I can appreciate all the amateur radio operators taking care of the exclusion in the NC bill but why is amateur radio any less distracting to the driver than a cell phone? What about I-PODs, the car stereo, satelitte radio, car DVD players, lighting your cigarette from the car's lighter, etc., etc.

At some point, it's the driver's responsibility to maintain proper control of their vehicle. It's my belief that you don't start singling out specifc technologies or acts to punish drivers because they all CAN be dangerous and distracting. You simply make the punishment severe enough that if FOR ANY REASON the driver is distracted and causes an accident, the punishment will be severe and ultimately will act as a deterrent.

Oh, by the way, what about the folks who drive with their left leg folded up under them? Or what about women who drive while applying their makeup? Where does it end???

We were talking about this in the Iowa forum a couple weeks ago (http://www.radioreference.com/forum...m/134904-time-write-your-representatives.html). I asked the same question, and someone replied there is already a law that covers all of that - wreckless/careless driving. I guess it's not being enforced anywhere?

 

[Dean_L]

I've been saying it for years.

"The government can't fix stupid, and one can't protect stupid from itself so why bother?"

 

[Metrofire31]

I think you're right. I hate to say it but we have created so many distractions to driving that it's out of control. Can you imagine being a law enforcement officer and trying to enforce all this? Somehow, we all need to police ourselves to that this all becomes a moot point. I think I'm dreaming....

 

[kayn1n32008]

I think you're right. I hate to say it but we have created so many distractions to driving that it's out of control. Can you imagine being a law enforcement officer and trying to enforce all this? Somehow, we all need to police ourselves to that this all becomes a moot point. I think I'm dreaming....

the problem is that people dont take driving seriously, that being said, if there is no enforcement then average joe driver is going to push the bounderies. and it is not just being distracted, it can be any aspect of driving, in Alberta speeding is a huge problem. the speed limit on the Queen Elizabeth II between Calgary and Edmonton Alberta is 68.35Mph (110 km/h) the AVERAGE speed is 80.78Mph (130 km/h). this weekend i took a commuter bus return trip from Edmonton to Calgary, and had the front seat, the bus was floating between 110-120km/h(68.35-74.57mph) and we were getting passed like we were standing still. if you are not weaving in and out of traffic, dont stand out, and stay under 130km/h the RCMP/Sheriff Hiway Patrol will not stop you. people get really squirlly when on the roads and what passes for common sence goes right out the window, reading the paper while driving, using a laptop, talking on the phone, not using signal lights when changing lanes, it goes on an on.

 

[rescuecomm]

"I can appreciate all the amateur radio operators taking care of the exclusion in the NC bill but why is amateur radio any less distracting to the driver than a cell phone? What about I-PODs, the car stereo, satelitte radio, car DVD players, lighting your cigarette from the car's lighter, etc., etc."

Since the police must use their two way radio gear on the move, then isn't it strange to prohibit CB or ham radio since the operation is the same. The language actually allows mobile two way transmitters or receivers, but the fact that most two meter and 440 ham radio microphones have a touch tone pad on them, could confuse people. So technically, you shouldn't dial the repeater phone patch on the move if any such patches are still around.

Bob

 

[kb2vxa]

You have a valid point there Rescue but consider this. The way modern rigs with the possible exception of very complex and sophisticated high end "base station" transceivers are set up one may easily operate one with eyes closed. As a matter of fact I know a few hams who do as a matter of course, they are blind. Let's see you do that with a cell phone.

 

[MGBGTRacer]

"You simply make the punishment severe enough that if FOR ANY REASON the driver is distracted and causes an accident, the punishment will be severe and ultimately will act as a deterrent."

The point is to avoid the accident, not penalize worse after an accident happens. Deterrents don't work on sheeple because everything bad always happens to someone else, right?

 

[Metrofire31]

All very good points folks. I guess that's why these issues are not easy for our lawmakers to deal with. I do know you have to be very careful in crafting legislation because of the ways it can be interpreted as well as the difficulties it causes in enforcing it.

 

[N1508J]

And what about public safety radio users?

As a resident of Atlanta, I regularly experience some of the most intense traffic overload in our nation. It is made worse by drivers who are talking or texting on their cell phones. I am all in favor of some kind of legislation to stop this. However - and I am NOT an attorney - I do worry about several issues:

1. At this point, how enforceable is it? We don't have enough law enforcement officers to curtail this because Atlanta drivers have demonstrated their total lack of respect for the laws governing traffic signals, stop signs, not driving across gores and other solid lines, etc. Heck, the 55 MPH speed limit on I-285 is the best example I know of a law enforcement joke of a law

2. I can appreciate all the amateur radio operators taking care of the exclusion in the NC bill but why is amateur radio any less distracting to the driver than a cell phone? What about I-PODs, the car stereo, satelitte radio, car DVD players, lighting your cigarette from the car's lighter, etc., etc.

At some point, it's the driver's responsibility to maintain proper control of their vehicle. It's my belief that you don't start singling out specifc technologies or acts to punish drivers because they all CAN be dangerous and distracting. You simply make the punishment severe enough that if FOR ANY REASON the driver is distracted and causes an accident, the punishment will be severe and ultimately will act as a deterrent.

Oh, by the way, what about the folks who drive with their left leg folded up under them? Or what about women who drive while applying their makeup? Where does it end???

Would be halarious if such a "law" was passed. Police and fire operators would have to pull over before using their transmitters!

 

[davidmc36]

You have a valid point there Rescue but consider this. The way modern rigs with the possible exception of very complex and sophisticated high end "base station" transceivers are set up one may easily operate one with eyes closed. As a matter of fact I know a few hams who do as a matter of course, they are blind. Let's see you do that with a cell phone.

Modern cell phones are quite easy to operate for phone calls with your hands free (aside from touching one button on an earpiece) and eyes closed. You can voice activate most new cell phones. Once programmed, the only button you touch is the one on your earpiece. Once to start and once to stop. And it is not only numbers you have programmed in either. You can just say the number you want to dial.

 

[flecom]

Would be halarious if such a "law" was passed. Police and fire operators would have to pull over before using their transmitters!

because we all know that officers would never break the law :lol:

 

[kb2vxa]

"I do know you have to be very careful in crafting legislation because of the ways it can be interpreted as well as the difficulties it causes in enforcing it."

YOU don't draft the bill, please bear that in mind.

Nobody ever accused a legislator of having a brain unless it was stolen. When drafting a bill little thought is given to "collateral damage" in the fervor of political expediency and don't forget the riders, often one is more damaging than what it's attached to and that BTW is how they get one over on us. The devil's in the details and don't you ever forget it! If you think the public is sheeple you haven't attended a legislative session during which BTW the majority of representatives are absent and others vote for them in addition to casting their own. Never overlook their voting records come election time!

Back to the public for a moment, are you a sheep or a shepherd? If you don't ride herd on your representatives they can represent no one but themselves, think about it.

 

[N1508J]

All mobile communications banned?

As a resident of Atlanta, I regularly experience some of the most intense traffic overload in our nation. It is made worse by drivers who are talking or texting on their cell phones. I am all in favor of some kind of legislation to stop this. However - and I am NOT an attorney - I do worry about several issues:

1. At this point, how enforceable is it? We don't have enough law enforcement officers to curtail this because Atlanta drivers have demonstrated their total lack of respect for the laws governing traffic signals, stop signs, not driving across gores and other solid lines, etc. Heck, the 55 MPH speed limit on I-285 is the best example I know of a law enforcement joke of a law

2. I can appreciate all the amateur radio operators taking care of the exclusion in the NC bill but why is amateur radio any less distracting to the driver than a cell phone? What about I-PODs, the car stereo, satelitte radio, car DVD players, lighting your cigarette from the car's lighter, etc., etc.

At some point, it's the driver's responsibility to maintain proper control of their vehicle. It's my belief that you don't start singling out specifc technologies or acts to punish drivers because they all CAN be dangerous and distracting. You simply make the punishment severe enough that if FOR ANY REASON the driver is distracted and causes an accident, the punishment will be severe and ultimately will act as a deterrent.

Oh, by the way, what about the folks who drive with their left leg folded up under them? Or what about women who drive while applying their makeup? Where does it end???

I suppose then that Fire fighters, police, taxicabs, cb'ers and commerical carriers will be severly punished for those infractions as well?