Jeff Davis wrote:

The ARRL seems to be taking a fairly strong position with regards to
amateur mobile operation in the face of a mountain of evidence
suggesting that texting or cell phone use while driving is as dangerous,
or more so, as drinking and driving:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/08/09/11012/?nc=
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?

Disagreement? Bad press? Hard feelings? Quite possibly.

Liability? No, I don't think so. All they're doing is advocating (as
in "free speech" and "lobbying"), and in fact they're specifically
advocating that hams who do operate mobile do so only in ways which
don't put others at risk.

Granted, anybody can sue anybody for anything for any reason in this
country... but I think it'd be a very long stretch for someone to
succeed in winning a case against the ARRL based on their position and
statements.

Steve Bonine wrote:

I think you said it all when you pointed out that there's a boatload of
reliable data indicating that it's dangerous to use a cell phone while
driving.

True.

Trying to operate a transceiver while driving certainly can't
be any less dangerous.

Well, it *can* be less dangerous (or so I believe). I think that this
is a good area in which to base actual legislation (or a decision not
to have legislation) on actual research and facts, rather than on
guesses and conjectures and opinions.

My guess (grin) is that it depends very much on what you're doing with
the ham radio.

If you're just listening - it's probably no worse than listening to
the car FM or AM radio.

If you're tuning around - it's probably about as dangerous as tuning
your car FM radio, or trying to put a different CD into the player.
Could be dangerous.

If you're talking on the mike - you're more distracted then when
you're just listening, but unlike the tuning-around situation (or
changing a CD, etc.) you don't have to take your eyes off of the road.
Might be very distracting, might be no problem at all, depending on
how engaged you are in the conversation. [The same is true with
conversations with passengers in the car, by the way... anywhere from
no-problem-at-all to OK-now-look-at-the-tree-you-made-me-drive-into.]

If you're trying to dial in a message to be transmitted via APRS, it's
probably about as dangerous as cell/SMS-texting while driving (i.e.
insanely dangerous IMO, please do *not* do this!)

Obtaining a license from the FCC does not improve ones ability to drive
while distracted.

Granted.

The real question is, just how *much* distraction actually results
from various forms of equipment usage?

Trying to justify an exception to these laws based on emergency
communication is simply ludicrous. Only a tiny fraction of in-motion
mobile is actually related to an emergency.

If ham radio transmitting while driving is to be outlawed because it's
inherently too distracting and dangerous, then (as the ARRL points
out) one should outlaw *all* similar transmission behavior by *all*
drivers who are not actually involved in an in-progress emergency.

That would include public-safety land-mobile (i.e. most police radio
use by the driver), private land-mobile (e.g. cab drivers, business
radio use by delivery trucks), CB (truckers), FRS (by families in
convoy), and so forth.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Yes, it fly in the face of years of tradition that one should not
operate in-motion mobile. But when data showed that seat belts save
lives, we started using them. When data showed that smoking was bad, we
stopped smoking.

And, *if* actual *data* shows that typical land-mobile radio use does
result in a high enough level of distraction to significantly raise
the accident rate, then I'd agree that legislative action is called for.

I don't feel that simply taking data on cellphone usage effects, and
applying these data willy-nilly to land-mobile/CB/ham use, is
justified. I've seen some discussions which indicate that there are
valid psychological reasons why cell-phone conversations are
*extremely* distracting during driving... and that these factors do
not necessarily apply to typical land-mobile / ham usage.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!