Nebraska Assistant Section Manager and Public Information Coordinator
Jeff Beiermann, WB0M, sent me an email that was on the ARRL PR list
serve. The NTSB recommendation on drivers using cell phones and other
electronic devices is something that hams need to be aware of. We may
find ourselves banned from using ham radios while driving.

Here is the email that Jeff sent me which was authored by the ARRL
Chief Executive Officer, David Sumner, K1ZZ:
----------------------------------------------------
Since the NTSB recommendation that all use of cellphones and other
portable electronic devices by drivers be banned is the lead news story
of the day, it’s worth a reminder that ARRL has been on top of this
issue’s implications for Amateur Radio mobile operation for several
years.

ARRL’s position is set out in the attached Mobile Amateur Radio
Policy Statement, which includes suggested legislative language.

ARRL’s correspondence with the National Safety Council that is cited
in the following web story from September 15, 2009 may also be
helpful:

http://www.arrl.org/news/national-sa...uot-while-oper

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, and one of the studies
cited therein (the Australian study reported in the New England Journal
of Medicine) had already been debunked prior to the NTSB release (see
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BB1B720111212

David Sumner K1ZZ
---------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRL Nebraska Section
Section Manager: Arthur I Zygielbaum, K0AIZ

--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

In article , Steve Bonine wrote:

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.

If you read the 2009 article mentioned in the ARRL press release,
you'll see that the National Safety Council said that "there indeed
is some elevated risk" from operating amateur radios while driving,
but that the NSC has "no evidence that using two-way radios while
driving poses significant crash risks."

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?

Well, you're talking about a small minority of mobile hams who are
on HF, or surfing around VHF. Most mobile operations are surely by
hams who chat away on their favorite preprogrammed repeater(s).

Now, that still raises the issue of talking and driving (not to
mention holding a microphone), but I'm still not sure it's quite
as bad a situation as cellphones. If necessary, a ham can drop
the mic and the other people listening will realize immediately
that something came up that required his/her attention. I think
people who've never operated two-way radios don't have that under-
standing. Also, let's admit that most chatting on repeaters doesn't
take much brainpower. :-) It isn't like trying to discuss the marketing
campaign for a new computer on a cellphone. Oh, and quite often, there
are more than two people in the conversation, so any given ham isn't
even talking half the time.

I don't want to leave the impression that I think mobile operations
are completely safe, but I think they do have some clear differences
from cellphone conversations.


Patty N6BIS

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 12/17/2011 10:40 AM, 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



Well Steve, there is mobile operation and mobile operation.. Mobile I
stick to VHF/UHF FM so I don't do tuning, I let the radio do it, I don't
do antenna matching, Again the radio does it, and so on,, Usually I
don't even pick up the mic (I let it sit there)

However. that said.. I'm talking about MY mobile operation.

And I am aware that many folks do run HF and do have to tune the antenna
and so on ... I would like to think they pull off the road to do that.
But... You have a point.

I mean I use a cell phone when in the driver's seat too... But I find a
parking lot first!

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

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2109/4692 - Release Date: 12/20/11

On 12/18/2011 9:47 PM, Patty Winter wrote:

Now, that still raises the issue of talking and driving (not to
mention holding a microphone), but I'm still not sure it's quite
as bad a situation as cellphones. If necessary, a ham can drop
the mic and the other people listening will realize immediately
that something came up that required his/her attention.

I do agree with you, and have dropped the mic on occasion.

I might add.. The POLICE do the very same thing.. Though some
departments train the shotgun rider to hold the mic and use the radio,
what do you do when you patrol Solo? The department I dispatched for
always trained the driver to drive and talk at the same time.

So do Cabbies, Firemen, EMS drivers, Tow Truck drivers and many more.


Several major differences.. The microphone on my radios is tethered, If
I drop it I can recover it without taking my eyes off the road (later)

All 5 of the 2-way radios in the cockpit of this motor home, and the
"main" Radio elsewhere are like that, Same with the police cars and
other emergency vehicles I've seen.. but in today's world of hand held
cell phones that is NOT the case.

cell phones are held to the ear for the most part.

Another thing I have found... My Attitude when using a cell phone is
very much different from my attitude when talking on 2 meters (or one of
the other radios) On the phone I switch considerable attention to the
phone..

Someone (Einstein was creadeted on the page I saw it on but I doubt he
ever said this) said anyone who can safely drive a car while kissing a
pertty girl is not paying enough attention to the girl.

Cell phones are like that.. Safely driving and using a cell, not easy to
do.. But the radio does not require the same level of concentration
because we 2-way users... Well we are used to providing "Fills" for one
reason or another.
--
Nothing adds Excitement like something that is none of your business.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2109/4692 - Release Date: 12/20/11

In article ,
John Davis wrote:

Several major differences.. The microphone on my radios is tethered, If
I drop it I can recover it without taking my eyes off the road (later)

Been there, done that. :-) Dropped the mic on the passenger seat
or wherever it happened to land, then used my hand to feel for
the mic cord and run along that until I found the mic again. No
need to look down for it.


cell phones are held to the ear for the most part.

Don't most states prohibit that now? I realize that such laws are
widely disregarded, but aren't most mobile cellphone users using
Bluetooth headsets now? (I presume the phone itself is in some
kind of mount or on the passenger seat, so not subject to dropping.)


Another thing I have found... My Attitude when using a cell phone is
very much different from my attitude when talking on 2 meters (or one of
the other radios) On the phone I switch considerable attention to the
phone..

Yeah, I can't quite explain it, but there *is* a tangible difference.
I think some of has to do with cellphones being (or at least behaving
like) full-duplex devices, whereas ham radios are very much an "over
to you" situation.

(And let me make it clear that I'm referring to talking on a cellphone
in general, not just in a car. I rarely use a cellphone anyway, but
never in a car. I don't even have the necessary setup for it.)


Patty