On 11/08/09 14:13, Steve Bonine wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote:

He was operating CW with a key strapped to his thigh -- while driving
to work.

I like ham radio, and I like that guy ... but I don't want him
operating a moving vehicle anywhere within a hundred miles of me or my
family... even when all else fails...

You have captured the essence of my feelings in two sentences.

There is a body of reliable data that indicates that distraction during
driving causes accidents, no matter what is causing the distraction. It
is obvious that operating a ham radio causes distraction. You can argue
that the amount of distraction depends on what you're doing, or that
similar distraction is caused in other services like public safety or
land mobile, but the fact remains that operating a ham radio while
driving increases the probability that you'll have an accident.

Does it increase the probability enough to lump it in with cell phone
use and discourage the behavior by passing laws? I think that it does; I
recognize that there are dissenting opinions.

But for the ARRL to defend the right of hams to distract themselves
based on emergency communication is not logical. If they want to make
the case that operating a ham radio is sufficiently different than using
a cell phone that such laws should not apply, I still wouldn't agree but
at least the premise would be logical.

I have seen several close calls related to people chattering away on
cell phones while driving. I am convinced that the issue of distracted
drivers having accidents is real, and I support laws that prohibit that
behavior because I believe it to be dangerous both to the person who is
doing it and to me. I don't buy that operating a ham radio is
sufficiently less distracting that it should be exempted.

73, Steve KB9X


If you want distraction, try driving a double deck bus at school
chucking out time. I guarantee that 70+ screaming kids is *far* more
distracting than *any* phone call or radio conversation..!!

73 Ivor G6URP

In Jeff Davis wrote:

No matter your position on the mobile issue, does it seem to you that
by taking such a stand the ARRL is exposing itself to a boatload of
liability the first time a mobile operating radio amateur plows into
someone on the Interstate and the amateur operation is cited as a
primary cause for the accident?


I doubt that any liability could extend to an organization that simply
advocated a position.

Besides, this business of passing laws outlawing or allowing individual
activities, one at a time, is silly.

Any driver who contributed to an accident by being "distracted" or
"impaired" for any reason should be culpable.

If you're able to drive safely while talking on your rig while shaving
while eating a sandwich, well, more power to you :-)

--
Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN

On Aug 10, 2:30�pm, Jeff Davis wrote:
does it seem to you that
by taking such a stand the ARRL is exposing itself to a boatload of
liability the first time a mobile operating radio amateur plows into
someone on the Interstate and the amateur operation is cited as a
primary cause for the accident?

Not really. All the ARRL is doing is advocating that amateur radio not
be lumped into the same category as cellphones or texting.

More important, consider that amateurs have been operating mobile rigs
for at least 75 years (including WERS mobiles during WW2). In all that
time, can anyone cite a case - just one - where amateur radio operation
was cited as a primary or even a secondary cause for an accident?

Meanwhile, consider that while cell phones have only been common for
about 15 years, if that, the documented cases where cell-phone-use-
while-driving has been a major contributing factor to accidents are so
numerous that several states and municipalities have banned their use
while driving, or required hands-free operation only.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Jeff Davis" wrote in message
...


No matter your position on the mobile issue, does it seem to you that by
taking such a stand the ARRL is exposing itself to a boatload of liability
the first time a mobile operating radio amateur plows into someone on the
Interstate and the amateur operation is cited as a primary cause for the
accident?


I don't think ARRL would be liable for the action of any individual ham.

But I do believe two things:

1) Operating an amateur radio rig while driving is every much a distraction
as talking on a cell phone.

2) Amateur radio operators should not be eligible for "exemptions" not
available to the general public.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On 11/08/09 14:47, KØHB wrote:


"Jeff Davis" wrote in message
...


No matter your position on the mobile issue, does it seem to you that
by taking such a stand the ARRL is exposing itself to a boatload of
liability the first time a mobile operating radio amateur plows into
someone on the Interstate and the amateur operation is cited as a
primary cause for the accident?


I don't think ARRL would be liable for the action of any individual ham.

But I do believe two things:

1) Operating an amateur radio rig while driving is every much a
distraction as talking on a cell phone.

2) Amateur radio operators should not be eligible for "exemptions" not
available to the general public.


I don't know how it is generally in the US, but here in the UK there is
a specific law prohibiting the use of *hand held* phones whilst driving.

This law does *not* apply where hands-free equipment is in use, as long
as the phone itself is fixed in a cradle and not lying around loose
somewhere.

It also applies *solely* to phones and *not* to any other form of radio
communications, including two-way radio (of any type, business radio or
amateur, CB etc.) So I can quite legally use a hand-held microphone on
2m but not a hand-held phone.

Of course the police could quite easily charge me with the offence of
driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving, but
for some reason they saw fit to introduce a law banning hand-held phones.

73 Ivor G6URP