Time to write your representatives...

[burner50]

Iowa House file 9 as introduced prohibits the use of handheld communication devices in a vehicle on a roadway.


This bill is very broad and also includes amateur radio. No exemptions yet for any 2 way radios including emergency services...


http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Co...ory=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=HF9


If you need assistance, PM me and I can get you your local representatives information.

Now is the time to act! If we allow this sort of legislation to get passed, it is much harder to defeat once it is law!


This bill is currently in the transportation committee, Maybe we should contact those committee members in addition to your local representative. Here is a listing of the transportation committee members and links to their information:


Brian J. Quirk (D, District 15), Chair Iowa General Assembly - Brian J. Quirk (D): 15
Doris Kelley (D, District 20), Vice Chair Iowa General Assembly - Doris Kelley (D): 20
David A. Tjepkes (R, District 50), Ranking Member Iowa General Assembly - David A. Tjepkes (R): 50
Ako Abdul-Samad (D, District 66) Iowa General Assembly - Ako Abdul-Samad (D): 66
Richard D. Arnold (R, District 72) Iowa General Assembly - Richard D. Arnold (R): 72
Paul A. Bell (D, District 41) Iowa General Assembly - Paul A. Bell (D): 41
Dennis M. Cohoon (D, District 88) Iowa General Assembly - Dennis M. Cohoon (D): 88
Mary Gaskill (D, District 93) Iowa General Assembly - Mary Gaskill (D): 93
Chris Hagenow (R, District 59) Iowa General Assembly - Chris Hagenow (R): 59
Daniel A. Huseman (R, District 53) Iowa General Assembly - Daniel A. Huseman (R): 53
Kevin Koester (R, District 70) Iowa General Assembly - Kevin Koester (R): 70
Jim Lykam (D, District 85) Iowa General Assembly - Kevin Koester (R): 70
Larry K. Marek (D, District 89) Iowa General Assembly - Larry K. Marek (D): 89
Mike May (R, District 6) Iowa General Assembly - Mike May (R): 6
Donovan Olson (D, District 48) Iowa General Assembly - Donovan Olson (D): 48
Rod A. Roberts (R, District 51) Iowa General Assembly - Rod A. Roberts (R): 51
Nick Wagner (R, District 36) Iowa General Assembly - Nick Wagner (R): 36
Roger F. Wendt (D, District 2) Iowa General Assembly - Roger F. Wendt (D): 2
Andrew J. Wenthe (D, District 18) Iowa General Assembly - Andrew J. Wenthe (D): 18
John R. Whitaker (D, District 90) Iowa General Assembly - John R. Whitaker (D): 90
Gary Worthan (R, District 52) Iowa General Assembly - Gary Worthan (R): 52

 

[redhelmet13]

Simular issue here in Texas. There is a Rep. pushing a bill to ban the same type of things and more...
(Yep another Libereral...make that SOCIALIST formerly known as a Democrat).

Welcome to the United Socialist republic of Amerika.

 

[newsphotog]

DMRAA has the original article here: Des Moines Radio Amateurs Association: Mobile Ham Radio under attack?

And the latest update here: Des Moines Radio Amateurs Association: Status of H.F. 9 Legislation. That's the latest I have heard. I have not seen the new, "modified" bill, and I will believe it when I see it.

And yes, there is an exemption for emergency services: "This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to call 911 or to contact law enforcement authorities or an emergency response agency in an emergency situation."

 

[burner50]

And yes, there is an exemption for emergency services: "This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to call 911 or to contact law enforcement authorities or an emergency response agency in an emergency situation."

I wasnt aware that a radio club could have the "Original" Article when we are talking about pending legislation... Its public record and I just happened to stumble onto it.


The crappy part about this bill as introduced, is that this is not an exception for emergency services... This bill as it stands states that nobody, not even a police officer can use their communication devices unless it is an emergency situation. Section 2 is open for interpretation, but the legal interpretation should be that NOBODY uses any handheld communication devices for any reason UNLESS it is an emergency and you are calling 911, local law enforcement authorities, or an emergency response agency.

I believe you are interpreting the last part improperly. That is not singling out an emergency response agency, that is saying that you can contact one in an emergency.


I just dont see how this can be passed in its current form, and I expect to see a different bill when it comes out of the transportation committee. I sent an E-Mail to all but one of the transportation committee members. The last one I could not locate an e-mail address.

 

[newsphotog]

I wasnt aware that a radio club could have the "Original" Article when we are talking about pending legislation... Its public record and I just happened to stumble onto it.

I wasn't saying DMRAA came up with the bill, I was saying that it was DMRAA's original article, as opposed to the follow-up article.

The crappy part about this bill as introduced, is that this is not an exception for emergency services... This bill as it stands states that nobody, not even a police officer can use their communication devices unless it is an emergency situation. Section 2 is open for interpretation, but the legal interpretation should be that NOBODY uses any handheld communication devices for any reason UNLESS it is an emergency and you are calling 911, local law enforcement authorities, or an emergency response agency.

I believe you are interpreting the last part improperly. That is not singling out an emergency response agency, that is saying that you can contact one in an emergency.

Here's problem one: I was re-reading the sentence "This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to call 911 or to contact law enforcement authorities or an emergency response agency in an emergency situation" over and over in my head in different tones and with pauses in different spots and I have come to the conclusion that the sentence is an English teacher's worst nightmare.

There needs to be a comma in there somewhere instead of "or" over and over. Every time I hear "OR" it is telling me it's a separate item or action which is why I think the last part after the final "or" is separate from the rest of the sentence. Also it seems redundant to keep "911 ...or to contact law enforcement authorities..." because wouldn't "emergency response agency" cover that? With the way burner50 is interpreting it, I think it would be better-worded as "This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to contact emergency response agency in an emergency situation." I don't think I have read any news articles interpreting it that way, but it is what it is. I think it is a poorly-written bill overall.

Here's problem two: Where's an Iowa statute that clearly defines which situations are considered an "emergency." Is a traffic stop an emergency? A shooting? A game of shuffleboard gone awry at the local senior center? They need to define this in the law, or refer to a part of the Iowa Code if the definition has already been established.

I have heard from DMRAA members that the revised bill now only prohibits full-duplex operation. Again, I have yet to see the modified bill.

I think another important area to campaign to are the lobbyists (LOBBYISTS DECLARATION RESULTS). There are many undecided lobbyists on HF 9, including representatives of Iowa EMA, Iowa EMS Association, Iowa DPS, ACLU Iowa, Iowa Fireman's Association, Iowa State Reserve Law Officers Association and the Iowa County Attorneys' Association, to name a few.

A lobbyist for ACLU Iowa is also against HF 9, as well as what appears to be most, if not all, of the lobbyists for the Iowa Association of School Boards.

 

[burner50]

Here's problem one: I was re-reading the sentence "This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to call 911 or to contact law enforcement authorities or an emergency response agency in an emergency situation" over and over in my head in different tones and with pauses in different spots and I have come to the conclusion that the sentence is an English teacher's worst nightmare.

There needs to be a comma in there somewhere instead of "or" over and over. Every time I hear "OR" it is telling me it's a separate item or action which is why I think the last part after the final "or" is separate from the rest of the sentence. Also it seems redundant to keep "911 ...or to contact law enforcement authorities..." because wouldn't "emergency response agency" cover that? With the way burner50 is interpreting it, I think it would be better-worded as "This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to contact emergency response agency in an emergency situation." I don't think I have read any news articles interpreting it that way, but it is what it is. I think it is a poorly-written bill overall.

Legal documents are dry and should be read in a Ben Stein style of speaking. I've spent alot of time studying the state code of Iowa.

You're correct... But many of our state laws are written this way. I dont know how often you read legal documents but they need to be taken in the most literal form. Or is simply a term meaning Replace scenario A with scenario B. The terms "or"/"and" should be taken in their most literal form. Also this section is referring to the actual use of a device and what you are doing with it, not who can use a device in an emergency situation.

SO that one single run on sentence can be broken down like this:

This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to call 911 or to contact law enforcement authorities or an emergency response agency in an emergency situation.

should actually mean:
This section does not apply to the use of a handheld cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communication device to:

A.] call 911
B.] contact law enforcement authorities or an emergency response agency in an emergency situation.

Even if you take this with your interpretation, The definition of an emergency is :

A serious situation or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate action.
A condition of urgent need for action or assistance: a state of emergency.

I am not aware of a glossary in the State code, but perhaps there should be one.

Anyway, I do not interpret the definition of a traffic stop to be an emergency and this bill would inhibit the police officer's ability to perform his job in either case.



But we are just getting into semantics now...

At least we agree that this bill must be stopped. Not just amended, STOPPED.

 

[newsphotog]

I do find it interesting though that lobbyists for the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, Iowa State Police Association and the Iowa DOT are proponents of this bill if it supposedly inhibits two-way radio use. I would think the lobbyists wouldn't be stupid enough to support a bill that would inhibit their clients' duties.

I don't think the bill should be stopped. I think it should be modified, but I don't think it should be stopped. Twice now in the past two years, a driver on their cell phone has sideswiped me because they tried to make a lane change without checking either their mirrors or even simply looking out their window. Some people cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

Too many other times I have seen people actually eating a bowl of cereal while driving down I-235, putting their makeup on while driving and once I have even seen the driver and front seat passenger of a car making out while going 75 mph down I-35. Why don't we make a bill that covers these too?

I wonder how many drivers would fail the computerized driving test if Iowa made a law that required a computerized driving test when you renew a driver's license? I bet a lot would fail. Testing shouldn't be random, especially when drivers' licenses are up for renewal only every 5 or 6 years. I haven't even had a driving test since I got my learner's permit my freshman year of high school.

It seems like our legislators are focusing their attention on only one area of the problem, and they can't even do that without thinking about everybody it affects.

 

[burner50]

I do find it interesting though that lobbyists for the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, Iowa State Police Association and the Iowa DOT are proponents of this bill if it supposedly inhibits two-way radio use. I would think the lobbyists wouldn't be stupid enough to support a bill that would inhibit their clients' duties.

I don't think the bill should be stopped. I think it should be modified, but I don't think it should be stopped. Twice now in the past two years, a driver on their cell phone has sideswiped me because they tried to make a lane change without checking either their mirrors or even simply looking out their window. Some people cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

Too many other times I have seen people actually eating a bowl of cereal while driving down I-235, putting their makeup on while driving and once I have even seen the driver and front seat passenger of a car making out while going 75 mph down I-35. Why don't we make a bill that covers these too?

I wonder how many drivers would fail the computerized driving test if Iowa made a law that required a computerized driving test when you renew a driver's license? I bet a lot would fail. Testing shouldn't be random, especially when drivers' licenses are up for renewal only every 5 or 6 years. I haven't even had a driving test since I got my learner's permit my freshman year of high school.

It seems like our legislators are focusing their attention on only one area of the problem, and they can't even do that without thinking about everybody it affects.

Do you think that the Police associations have actually read the bill at this point? They were given the summary and told their lobbyist that sounds like a good idea. They were probably also told that it was oriented towards Cell phones anyway. But from a legal standpoint there are no exceptions yet that allow any moblie radio use unless stopped and off the roadway. Roadway is defined in the state code Chapter 321.

 

[LID109]

Oh lord. This bill was/is proposed to ban the use of cell phones while driving. YES the part about wireless communications devices would include mobile radios, scanners and heck, even GPS devices WHOOPS did they think of that? Probably not. Quit looking into it so deeply. It's obviously written too broadly and will need to be amended. We should really remember there is a WHOLE WORLD of people out there who don't care/know what scanners or ham radios even are and certainly weren't thinking of the people who use them. Write your lawmaker and let them know this. Would the police officer be in violation of the law while using thier portable driving down the street...duh, yes, but really, think of the law's intent. To prevent accidents caused by distracted motorist using cell phones. As for eatting, reading, making out while driving, there already is a law on the books. It's called careless driving. Report it, give your name, and offer a signed and sworn statement when asked to do so. IMO a good cop could make a case of careless driving right now on a distracted motorist using a cell phone. I don't even think a new law is nessicary. Let's stick to the spirit of the law. Let law makers make laws (and we do have the power to help make them correctly) let police, police, and let's stick to radios here. We'll be fine....of course after expressing our CONCERNS to the law makers.

 

[newsphotog]

Radio Iowa: No law to ban cell phone use while driving

"Senator Tom Rielly of Oskaloosa, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, says the bill has gotten a lukewarm reception in the Iowa Senate."

(via SIXONE.ORG | Iowa Great Lake Amateur Radio Club W0DOG)

 

[burner50]

Radio Iowa: No law to ban cell phone use while driving

"Senator Tom Rielly of Oskaloosa, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, says the bill has gotten a lukewarm reception in the Iowa Senate."

(via SIXONE.ORG | Iowa Great Lake Amateur Radio Club W0DOG)

At this point I could care less about what the senate thinks... Save that one for a later date.

We do however need to make our opinions known to our elected officials in the Iowa HOUSE, so that they do not try this sort of thing again.

 

[burner50]

Oh lord. This bill was/is proposed to ban the use of cell phones while driving. YES the part about wireless communications devices would include mobile radios, scanners and heck, even GPS devices WHOOPS did they think of that? Probably not. Quit looking into it so deeply.

Let's stick to the spirit of the law.

See, the big problem is that too many people assume, "well thats not what that means", and yet thats how the law is legally defined. The spirit of the law and the interpretation of the law are very different things.

Just because the law was intended to apply to cell phone usage, That does not mean that it actually reads that it only applies to cell phones.... So Far, quite the opposite actually.

NOW is the time to get worked up over these sorts of things, because if they pass something it is alot harder to change it....


It takes an act of congress...

 

[newsphotog]

Senate File 190 - Introduced

Includes section exempting FCC-licensed amateur radio operators: http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Co...y=BillInfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=SF190

1 14 c. This subsection does not apply to the use of an amateur
1 15 radio by a federally licensed amateur radio operator.