California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect July 1; Ham Radio Not Affected
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 27, No 24
on
June 20, 2008
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect July 1; Ham Radio Not Affected Says Counsel:
A new California hands-free cellular telephone law goes into effect July
1, 2008. It, like many others around the country, prohibits using mobile
telephones while driving, unless a hands-free device is utilized. ARRL
has received numerous questions about its application to the use of
mobile Amateur Radio stations by licensed amateurs. The law, in relevant
part, states as follows:
"23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving."
ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, advises that "The definition of
prohibited behavior in California's recent statute does not include a
prohibition of operating a mobile, licensed Amateur Radio station while
driving, because Amateur Radio transceivers are not telephones. While
ARRL cannot guarantee that this statute will not be interpreted by law
enforcement officers or the courts of California more broadly than that,
it is our view that a fair reading of the statute excludes mobile
operation of Amateur Radio equipment by licensed radio amateurs.
"That said, it is obvious that drivers should pay full time and
attention to driving. To the extent that operating their amateur
stations while mobile is a distraction to them, they should consider, if
possible, pulling over safely to the side of the road and conducting
their amateur communications while stationary."
ARRL Regulatory Information Manager Dan Henderson, N1ND, adds that while
the statute on its face does not apply to Amateur Radio mobile
operation, problems could still arise: "Law enforcement officers are not
telecommunications experts and may not understand or be concerned about
the difference between a cellular telephone and a ham radio. If you do
get stopped, be polite and state that you were operating a mobile
Amateur Radio transmitter as specifically authorized by the FCC and not
a wireless telephone. Don't engage in an argument if the officer issues
a citation -- that won't help your cause. If cited, you will need to
follow the instructions about contesting the citation in traffic court.
As ARRL General Counsel Imlay notes, the language of the statute does
not appear to include amateur mobile operation. Unfortunately, you could
have to go through the inconvenience of appearing in court to contest a
citation."
ARRL will continue to monitor the application of this statute relative
to radio amateurs.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 27, No. 24
June 20, 2008
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect July 1
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love this. ARRL cites only a small part of the CA Vehicle Code. They beat around the bush about ambiguity, but leave out the source. Here it is:
23123 e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles:
(1) (A) A motor truck, as defined in Section 410, or a truck tractor, as defined in Section 655, that requires either a commercial class A or class B driver’s license to operate.
(B) The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a person driving a pickup truck, as defined in Section 471.
Notice it specifically exempts what it describes as a very close description of an amateur transceiver, but only "good-buddy" Smokey and the Bandit drivers are protected. (The poor guy driving shotgun in a pick-up truck isn't). Digital two-way radio, employing a push-to-talk switch sounds awfully close to what we or our good buddy 11 meter friends use. Especially-so for us, if an autopatch feature is available on repeaters. This is just hilarious. Trucker CBers are exempt, but hams in pickups, SUVs and autos aren't.
Does this law give the LEOs in CA authority to grab a pair of dikes and reach in and clip off your PTT mike and cord to confiscate as evidence? That'll be next......
Sure glad I don't live in CA anymore. Whew.
Of course, the “saavy” interpretation by the state's finest, and local LEOs would be that the description fits a Nextel cellular device. However, by using the phrases "digital two-way radio" and "push to talk," it creates quite an ambiguity in that it implies that any two-way radio use by anyone not listed as being exempt is prohibited. And, as usual, instead of pointing out the ambiguity, ARRL skirts the meat of the issue.
OK, the fine's only $20. But, think about the time and trouble it would take to go to court and attempt to contest the rinky-dink citation. Or, if a hapless ham is nailed repeatedly, the fine accelerates. Unless the judge happens to be a ham, good luck. We're talking about a major headache with this legislation. Where was ARRL when this verbiage was being concocted? We know where Sprint/Nextel was......
|
| |
|
RE: California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect Ju
|
|
|
by WN9HJW on June 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I never understood why they think that having a "hands-free" cell phone is going to solve the problems with distracted drivers.
Drivers who have accidents and do dumb things while driving do so as a result of their brains being distracted, not because their hands are holding something.
So . . . what's needed is "brains-free" cell phones, not "hands-free".
|
| |
|
RE: California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect Ju
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pretty scary that truckers can fiddle with Nextel cell phones all they want via the special exception.
Distracted 18-wheeler truckers are OK. Strange.
|
| |
|
RE: California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect Ju
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This section is part of what have traditionally been considered reckless driving statutes. As such, it will be considered a moving violation. Moving violations do what to insurance rates? Shoot them through the roof!!
And, more importantly, assess points to one's driving record that may result in a driver's license suspension.
Like I said above, sure glad I don't live there anymore.
73.
Lee
W6EM/4
Leeds, AL
|
| |
|
RE: California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect Ju
|
|
|
by KT8K on June 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Confusing language, but "digital two-way radio" doesn't describe CB - that's analog. Of course, it's possible (probable) there are many people who think anything with a digital display is therefore "digital" in every way. The word "telephone" does muddy the description, but it does seem like it's trying to describe Nextel.
I don't see anything I'd consider a "very close description of an amateur transceiver", though, nor do I see anything that protects any "good buddy" ... is this a bit of ARRL-bashing, W6EM?
I agree with NN4RH on distraction - it's the brain, not the hands, that get distracted. Of course, juggling that cellphone, cup of coffee, etc. all at once poses a physical hazard. (Ever get your mic cord wrapped around the steering column?) It's nice of them to exempt us (hams). I hope we are worthy of it.
73 de kt8k - Tim
|
| |
|
RE: California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect Ju
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT8K said:"Confusing language, but "digital two-way radio" doesn't describe CB - that's analog. Of course, it's possible (probable) there are many people who think anything with a digital display is therefore "digital" in every way. The word "telephone" does muddy the description, but it does seem like it's trying to describe Nextel."
But, the point is, Tim, every other class of user is not exempt. If that section had not been included, perhaps the overall description might have been murky enough for the beat cop or local deputy to interpret as only applying to cell phones. But, by adding the Nextel trucker ememption, the words imply every other user of a digital two way radio or push to talk operated two way radio is prohibited from using same in a vehicle.
Yes, you and I interpret digital two way radio differently than analog, but even that difference would preclude anyone but truckers from using an 800 or 900 MHz trunked two way system.
"I don't see anything I'd consider a "very close description of an amateur transceiver", though, nor do I see anything that protects any "good buddy" ... is this a bit of ARRL-bashing, W6EM?"
It protects truckers from the ambiguity, not the rest of the public using amateur radios, CBs, or commercial two way radios in a vehicle. The very poorly worded exemption creates a likelihood of citation by many law enforcement agencies, except, apparently, the California Highway Patrol. (Via memo from its Public Affairs Office)
Yes, I intentionally am calling the ARRL's response as grossly inadequate. You might also want to read Newsline Editor WA6ITF-Bill Pasternak's response over at QRZ. He even went so far as to have informed ARRL (locally and Newington) and their response was "no problem." Omission of the "(e)" section from their story, which generates the ambiguity, was a major flop. And, in my opinion, done purposefully, to avoid dealing with the real potential harm from it, as it reads, to amateur radio users.
If ARRL does something right, I applaud them. On the other hand, if they do something grossly inadequate or try to gloss over something serious as they've done here, then yes, I'm right in there "bashing" when I think they deserve it. I pay my dues for that privilege.
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
Leeds, AL
|
| |
|
RE: California Hands-Free Law to go Into Effect Ju
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on June 23, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Yes, I intentionally am calling the ARRL's response as grossly inadequate."
I agree. Most other states have specific exemptions for amateur radio...that's noticably lacking here. And Chris Imlay's response amounts to basically a "sigh and a shrug"..."oh well, you're probably going to get a citation and probably going to have to go to court...oh bother?"
Yep, Eeyore would be proud!!! Advocacy at its' finest.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
Blackwood's Radio Link To Titanic Commemorated:
Red Cross Honors 2 for Crucial Radio Coordination After Joplin Tornado:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #06 de K7RA:
Amateur Radio Exempted from IL. Law:
|
