On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:40:04 -0500, Steve Bonine wrote:

On 12/15/11 9:12 AM, ARRL Members Only Web site wrote:

Of course, in responding to the NTSB recommendation we must be careful
not to minimize the horrific nature of the accidents cited in their
Fact Sheet (also attached). But the fact is that none of them involved
Amateur Radio or other two-way radio operation,

It amazes me to think that there are people who are reasonable in other
respects, but who can say with a straight face that there is no evidence
that using ham radio while driving results in distraction. Somehow hams
have a mysterious ability to tune around looking for a QSO, check the
antenna match, and carry on a conversation without this activity
distracting them from driving? If it wasn't for the clear danger it
poses, that would be funny.

After 47 years as an ARRL member, we parted ways on this issue. I think
it is morally irresponsible for a national organization to encourage
their members to engage in what is obviously dangerous behavior that
puts other people at risk.

73, Steve KB9X

My 2-meter Kenwood tunes itself. I've had 2 driving jobs with 2-way
radios and was a dispatcher eventually for one of them. We had wrecks but
the radios were never a factor in causation, but they sure helped summon
aid quickly. I thunk a repeater (with callsign) when I get on the road,
to check the gear, and don't think about again, unless someone comes up
and asks for a radio check. The only time my local repeater sees
significant use is a weekly Monday night meet, and for 3 days in the
Spring. If I can work my town's little repeater I know I can work the
well used big city repeater on the same hill. If I dial 9-11 I may get
put on hold.

Dave kd6il

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:51:36 EST, dave wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:40:04 -0500, Steve Bonine wrote:

Somehow hams
have a mysterious ability to tune around looking for a QSO, check the
antenna match, and carry on a conversation without this activity
distracting them from driving? If it wasn't for the clear danger it
poses, that would be funny.

My 2-meter Kenwood tunes itself. I've had 2 driving jobs with 2-way
radios and was a dispatcher eventually for one of them. [snipped]
I thunk a repeater (with callsign) when I get on the road,
to check the gear, and don't think about again, unless someone comes up
and asks for a radio check.

Exactly! Anyone who would do what Steve described needs to have their
sanity checked. As most of us probably do, I set my dual-band mobile
on the channel that I would use (the other channel monitors a non-ham
safety system) and never touch the mike again unless there's a very
important reason to do so. Working a contest of snagging a QSO are
not important reasons while driving.

Steve should realize and accept that there's a world of difference
between dispatch communications, which we do, and having a duplex
conversation. I can blame the cellphone industry for fooling the
public into thinking that a cellphone is just some special type of
telephone rather than a radio transceiver. We ran into this attitude
when the industry twisted The Congress into amending the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act to make unauthorized interception of
cellphone signals a crime, giving only the illusion of privacy, rather
than providing robust encryption of the signals in the first place.

I've been using mobile radios, both ham and non-ham, for decades and
know how to do it safely. The local 30-somethings with the cellphones
up to the ear and no hands on the wheel obviously do not. I spent a
lot of effort to get the ham exemption written into the Oregon
hands-free statute, and I do use a hands-free device with my cellphone
at all times.

That's my two rings....
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On 12/19/11 2:00 PM, Phil Kane wrote:

Steve should realize and accept that there's a world of difference
between dispatch communications, which we do, and having a duplex
conversation.

It's not "dispatch communications" that we're talking about. If the
ARRL wants to go after an exemption for dispatch communications, I might
be able to support that. But they're defending the right of hams to
exercise all aspects of their hobby while driving. They're defending
their members' right to diddle with an HF rig, work DX, strain for weak
signals, and so on. The fact that no sane person would do that does not
change what the ARRL is working for. And I've seen people who in other
respects were perfectly sane do exactly this while behind the wheel at
80 mph.

I've been using mobile radios, both ham and non-ham, for decades and
know how to do it safely.

Good for you. Your abilities do not extrapolate into the general ham
radio population.

I spent a
lot of effort to get the ham exemption written into the Oregon
hands-free statute, and I do use a hands-free device with my cellphone
at all times.

We are using an FCC license to determine whether someone is qualified to
drive while operating a radio. They're not required to have any
training and there is no limit to the amount of distraction they can
impose upon themselves.

73, Steve KB9X

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:42:15 EST, Steve Bonine wrote:

We are using an FCC license to determine whether someone is qualified to
drive while operating a radio. They're not required to have any
training and there is no limit to the amount of distraction they can
impose upon themselves.

Oregon, and I would suspect most other states, have a traffic statute
proscribing "driving while distracted". The exemptions that exist -
hams, taxis, etc. - do not supercede that. In plain language, a
traffic officer would have to prove that using the ham radio was a
distraction, as compared to the mere use of a cellphone. It's not an
absolute exemption.

Sadly, the average TO does not have the technical experience or
qualifications to distinguish between a ham radio microphone or
handheld and a cellphone. We had a case like that in Southern
California recently, which went away because the TO did not show up at
trial.

I can live with that burden of proof. Can you?
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On 12/20/2011 5:42 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 12/19/11 2:00 PM, Phil Kane wrote:

Steve should realize and accept that there's a world of difference
between dispatch communications, which we do, and having a duplex
conversation.

It's not "dispatch communications" that we're talking about. If the ARRL
wants to go after an exemption for dispatch communications, I might be
able to support that. But they're defending the right of hams to
exercise all aspects of their hobby while driving. They're defending
their members' right to diddle with an HF rig, work DX, strain for weak
signals, and so on. The fact that no sane person would do that does not
change what the ARRL is working for. And I've seen people who in other
respects were perfectly sane do exactly this while behind the wheel at
80 mph.

I've been using mobile radios, both ham and non-ham, for decades and
know how to do it safely.

Good for you. Your abilities do not extrapolate into the general ham
radio population.

I spent a
lot of effort to get the ham exemption written into the Oregon
hands-free statute, and I do use a hands-free device with my cellphone
at all times.

We are using an FCC license to determine whether someone is qualified to
drive while operating a radio. They're not required to have any training
and there is no limit to the amount of distraction they can impose upon
themselves.

73, Steve KB9X


I can tell you that at least in my case, and I suspect it is the case
with MANY hams.. The attitude is 100% different if using a Ham 2-way and
a cell phone...

A wise man is supposed to have said: Any man who can safely drive a car
while kissing a pretty girl is not giving the girl the attention she
deserves.

The cell phone is like the girl it demands more attantion than I can
spare when driving.

The radio.. not so much. Not nearly so much.

And the "Dispatch" communactions I did for 25 years .... was 2-way.

--
Nothing adds Excitement like something that is none of your business.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4704 - Release Date: 12/26/11