Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cited for CVC 23123 ? CHP Improperly Applying The Law  (Read 14957 times)
K6EK
Member

Posts: 32




Ignore
« on: March 12, 2014, 01:01:03 PM »

An associate on the job was cited for a violation of CVC 23123. He was using his company radio. To my reading this applies to telephone devices, not radios. Does anyone have current knowledge of this area ? Sounds like the CHP is legislating again.

Ken
K6EK
Logged
KI6LZ
Member

Posts: 586




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2014, 01:11:03 PM »

Code says "wireless telephone". Think they screwed up. Oh well, I'm sure his appeal will win but unfortunately he has to waste his time.
Logged
KI6LZ
Member

Posts: 586




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2014, 01:17:18 PM »

Not sure if he can contest by mail or has to appear in traffic court. Either way, take photo of radio and car, have copy of business license, keep notes on what was discussed, etc. Look at citation and verify if cellphone or radio was mentioned rather than just the CVC 23123 violation.
Logged
KE4DRN
Member

Posts: 3722




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2014, 05:39:05 PM »

Hi

A letter from the radio manufacturer, signed by one of their techs,
to verify that the radio is in fact a radio and not a cellular device.

73 james
Logged
K6CPO
Member

Posts: 151




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2014, 06:26:41 PM »

I seem to recollect that when California's hands-free was first enacted the California Highway Patrol sent out a letter specifically saying the statue DID NOT apply to amateur radios with a hand-held microphone.  By extension this should apply to a business band; radio as well...

Unfortunately, I can't find the letter online.
Logged
G8YMW
Member

Posts: 229




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2014, 04:21:52 AM »

I know this isn't Amateur Rasio but would the ARRL have any info?
Logged

73 details Tony
Sent by WW2 Royal Navy signal lamp
K6JH
Member

Posts: 42




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2014, 11:51:03 AM »

I know this isn't Amateur Rasio but would the ARRL have any info?

Yes, apparently the Feds have passed "distracted driving" laws, and the NHTSA is confused as to the proper definitions of how to apply the rules. The ARRL has chimed in:
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST/This%20Month%20in%20QST/November%202013/It%20Seems%20to%20US.pdf

If you look up MAP-21 information
http://www.distraction.gov/download/research-pdf/DD_NOFA.pdf
it references a section of 47 CFR 332(c)(7)(C)(i) where the banned things are defined:

(C) Definitions
For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
(ii) the term “personal wireless service facilities” means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the term “unlicensed wireless service” means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303 (v) of this title).


Where "commercial mobile service" means interconnected to the phone network.

I can't see how that applies to a Licensed non-commercial radio service (Amateur Radio), or for that matter conventional commercial 2-way radios. It's just a case of a bunch of bureaucrats not understanding the limitations of their own rules, and trying to broaden the intent of the law. With a lot of innocents caught up in their web.
Logged
K1DA
Member

Posts: 498




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2014, 09:57:52 AM »

Does that little bureaucrat nightmare inculde autopatch repeaters? 
Logged
K7RBW
Member

Posts: 390




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2014, 06:58:16 AM »

Does that little bureaucrat nightmare inculde autopatch repeaters? 
Depends on your lawyer Smiley
Logged
K6JH
Member

Posts: 42




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2014, 02:30:00 PM »

Does that little bureaucrat nightmare inculde autopatch repeaters? 

People still use autopatches???  Cheesy
Logged
KD4LLA
Member

Posts: 457




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2014, 11:41:31 AM »

Does that little bureaucrat nightmare inculde autopatch repeaters? 
Still using a hand-held microphone aren't you?

Besides, why would anyone use an autopatch when everyone age 12 and up has a cellphone?

Mike
Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 834




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2014, 09:51:56 AM »

Maybe not where you live, but in certain parts of the country a good 2 Meter Rig to an autopatch repeaters is more reliable and generally has better coverage. Different tools for different jobs. Cell phones didn't replace the autopatch, they just provided another tool and one tha was available to the general public.

What with all the hoopla about distracted, walkers, drivers, whatever else you care to insert; cell phones may soon be banned, restricted, and/or licensed to the point of unusability.

KF7CG
Logged
G7DIE
Member

Posts: 65




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2014, 04:13:57 PM »

Not sure how it works in the states, but a friend of mine fell foul of the law which bans use of mobile phones, he was using his ham rig and the policeman didn't know PTT devices were excluded from the legislation. My friend, armed with the relevant legislation and exclusion, appeared in court to contest the charge, when it was proven he actions weren't in breach of that particular piece of legislation, the charge was changed to driving with undue care and attention, which he lost!
Logged
KI6LZ
Member

Posts: 586




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2014, 04:17:30 PM »

Wow, what a judicial system you got there.
Logged
K6JH
Member

Posts: 42




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2014, 07:03:59 PM »

.
.
.
the charge was changed to driving with undue care and attention, which he lost!

Guess it's time to rig up a footswitch for PTT, and a hidden mic. Is it a crime to appear to be talking to yourself?

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!