Steve Bonine wrote:

Yes, certainly simplex and duplex are different.

But what the ARRL is saying is that there is a fundamental difference
between communicating using mobile radio and communicating using a cell
phone. Sumner is using the terms "simplex" and "duplex" to describe
this. Since "simplex" and "duplex" are not common words generally used
by the public, I conclude that he has picked them primarily to control
the discussion. Rather than admit that they don't understand what the
words mean, many people will just say, "Sure".

The issue is distraction to a driver. It makes no difference whether
you can hear the other person while you're talking.

I disagree and I maintain that it certainly makes a difference. Being
able to hear the person on the other end at the same time I am talking,
is an additional distraction.

Whether you're
using a cell phone or a mobile radio, you're having a conversation with
another person and fiddling with the actual equipment -- flipping open a
cell phone to answer a call, or changing the frequency on the ham
transceiver. In fact, there are a whole lot more buttons to push and
potential distractions with the transceiver than with the cell phone.

Are you kidding? My cellular phone is filled with little tiny buttons
and it has a little tiny screen filled with little tiny menu items. It
doesn't have a flip cover.

I may or may not have to change the frequency of my mobile rig. Mine
has a outboard front panel which is mounted on my dash. I don't need to
look away from the road to see it.


If cell phone use while driving is an activity that needs to be
discouraged, then mobile radio operation while driving should also be
discouraged because they both result in distraction. To say, "The
driver isn't distracted because he can't hear the other person while
he's talking" is not logical. Saying it using fancy words like
"simplex" and "duplex" does not make it more valid.

If you don't like it, Steve, then don't operate your cellular phone or
your mobile amateur station. Don't tell me that I can't because then
you are on that slippery slope. There'll be those who tell us that we
can't eat that Big Mac, sip that coffee or Pepsi, use that GPS, change
that CD or even listen to that broadcast radio while moving. Me? I've
been operating mobile for over forty years and have never had an
accident while doing so--FM, SSB or even CW.

Dave Heil K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

If you don't like it, Steve, then don't operate your cellular phone or
your mobile amateur station. Don't tell me that I can't because then
you are on that slippery slope. There'll be those who tell us that we
can't eat that Big Mac, sip that coffee or Pepsi, use that GPS, change
that CD or even listen to that broadcast radio while moving. Me? I've
been operating mobile for over forty years and have never had an
accident while doing so--FM, SSB or even CW.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

There are millions of people who have driven millions of miles drunk and
not had an accident, but laws were enacted banning DUI. I believe that
laws banning cell phone use while driving are appropriate. Yes, it's a
slippery slope, but all laws are a slippery slope. That's why our
lawmakers are so well paid and respected grin.

In your opinion, mobile radio operation is less distracting than cell
phone use. I can't prove that it is or isn't, and there will never be a
scientific study on this narrow topic. That means that our lawmakers
must make the decision based on input from us and organizations like the
ARRL. That's a scary thought, but it's the way that the process works.

I believe that the ARRL's position on the issue is wrong. You don't.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree. But I'd like to leave it at
that. I am not "telling you" what you can or cannot do; I am expressing
my opinion.

73, Steve KB9X