From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18
-0500

In my
state, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written.

In North Carolina, all one has to do to renew drivers licenses is an eye
examination, test for color blindness, and go through the road signs to tell
the examiner what the various signs mean. The only time you have to take
the written test or drivers test is if you have had a moving violation since
your last license issue date.

That seems to be the case with most, if not all, states in
the USA. In California the DMV has a "study guide" free in
printed form, PDF download, or HTML perusal on-line for its
written test. I did mine a couple years ago and it was
comprehensive. No qualms, no anxiety, just kicking myself
mentally for missing ONE question that was obvious as to
what the correct answer should have been. :-)

Interesting to note all the remarks some make about "needing"
real equipment to operate and a good simulation of station
environment. That's comparable to the driver's license road
test where an inspector rides along observing-directing as one
is out in traffic. Not a "simulation" but the REAL thing.
Yet MOST states have dropped that road test, satisfied with
the written test...plus the eye quick-check, new-legislation-
since-last-tested quickie quiz, and some other subtle clues
the clerks observe to find out if a person is "with it." :-)

Operating a ton or two of moving machinery in the midst of
other moving machinery on a street or road is FAR MORE
HAZARDOUS to both operator and anyone nearby. Yet most
states have dropped doing that sort of testing except, as
you note, moving violations have been done or just requiring
a ten-plus year period of such retesting. That's for
practical reasons NOT bounded on the cost of maintaining
road driving inspectors but more like the following:

1. Most drivers doing testing are NOT (generally) trying
to kill themselves or anyone else in the near future...they
will be needing an automobile for regular transportation
and have enough common sense to follow driving laws and
procedure to keep that ability.

2. Most DMV (or state equivalent) testing offices-locations
are some distance from a testee's residence and/or place of
work. They have used their vehicle to get to the test area,
itself a form of "being able to operate a vehicle."
Exceptions of first-license applicants are just exceptions
and a minority - they MUST have the road test in most states.
California used to be nit-picky about new residents bearing
another states' drivers license: in 1956 I had to take a
road test despite having held an Illinois license since
1950 (was "becoming a resident by accepting employment here").
That may still be in force but irrelevant.

3. In my infrequent observations of California DMV offices,
there's been no change of the number of road test inspectors
nor of facilities and they have made the same number of free
guides and information for the public. Plus, they've
implemented the photo ID and now issue license cards with
holographic impressions and a magnetic data stripe on them.
This state, like most states, has a computer data network
on drivers licenses as well as identified vehicles. The
cost of all those things has increased budget requirements,
not decreased them. Much of that has been to aid police
departments since vehicular operation CAN, and unfortunately
does lead to fatal incidents.

In comparison to the amateur radio hobby, there really isn't
much. Operation of a hobby radio seldom results in any
fatality. Of course, any amateur may make stupid mistakes
and off themselves but home accidents happen to all humans
and aren't related to amateur radio licensing. The RF
safety regulations have always been questionable to me (I've
dug into comprehensive medical studies of such things done
by the USAF by medical researchers). Much of today's "RF
Safety" regulations seem to be the result of legislative
hysteria based on such "dangerous" sources of radiation as
HVAC power lines, cell phones, and microwave ovens. :-)

To have "practical amateur radio station operation" as a
test is in the realm of the highly impractical. For one
thing there is little standardization in form-fit-function
or control of desk-mount transceivers...except for a single
brand's model series. Desk-mount transceivers share very
few common controls with compact, multi-function handheld
two-way radios. Compare any ready-built ham transceiver
of this brand-new century with any available in, say, 1960
and there is a world of difference in technology between
them. On the other hand, basic automobile operational
controls have only varied slightly in the last half century,
including instrumentation. Steering wheel, gearshift,
speedometer, lights, turn-signals, accelerometer, brake
pedal are all there today as they were in 1950. Only the
clutch as a basic control has all but disapperared with the
automatic transmission (the gearshift remains although its
function settings are different).

But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

I agree completely. The test pools appear to be adequate.

I looked into www.ncvec.org to refresh my memory. There's
only ONE graphic file there and that for Extra. Seems to
be covering the FCC regulations as well as the California
DMV does its Motor Vehicle Code questions.

For the most
part the new hams I have observed appear to be capable of making that first
contact and improve as they gain experience.

I can't comment much on that since my "first contact" on
real radio was back in 1952 in training at Fort Monmouth,
NJ. :-) Very strict protocol observance, of course. The
Army was not a hobby activity, just involved in a skill
set of DESTROYING an enemy with self-survival a plus. :-)
The next three years of active duty was more of the same
with a much bigger, more complex set of "radios."

Much later as a civilian and taking flying lessons, I had
NO problem operating an aircraft radio, using Civil
Aviation flying jargon and FAA procedures. That seemed
to really **** off one of my two instructors. Apparently
he wanted to play control-freak in constantly berating me
for being such a newbie dummy. The other one kept
insisting I needed that 3rd Class (Restricted) Radio-
telephone License (no test required) to "be lawful." Had
to explain to VNY Skyways CEO that my First 'Phone (then
6 years since issuance) was quite lawful and had to get
an FAA tower man at VNY to back me up. Skyways had the
temerity of billing me the usual 1-hour rate of $17.50
I spent NOT in flying lessons but instead arguing with
folks who supposedly "knew better." I quit that flying
thing for various other reasons afterwards although lack
of spare money at the time was primary motivator. :-)

It's a safe and fun hobby that
has practical application during times of emergency or national need. My
experience has been that, when asked, they will make the sacrifice of time
and personal equipment during disasters to provide that essential common
radio communications between various federal and state organizations who
cannot communicate directly with each other via radio.

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

IMO, having more hams at the current level of standards is
a good thing.

For the hobby, I'll agree with you. For the electronics
industry it won't make a dent either way...and it won't
much change the REAL Public Safety organizations in a
few urban government structures who've already had their
emergency plans proven by the REAL thing.

On the other hand, as a resident of the Center of Film
and TV production city of Los Angeles, CA, I have the
displeasure of being close to the show biz elite who
produced such "documentaries" as "Independence Day."
Still, I'm not worried about Alien Invaders from Outer
Space or whether or not there are enough morsemen to
"Save the World" with their intrepid morse skills...:-)

Best regards,
LA