So ambulance drivers, firetruck drivers, and marked (but not unmarked) police car drivers are excluded, but truckers, taxi drivers, volunteer firemen (in their personal vehicles), and amateur radio operators are not. What's interesting to me is the exemption for farmers, which makes no sense from any public safety purpose, but is clearly there merely because the farmers got to the committee before the bill got out. From various comments by legislators and others behind this bill, it's obvious they haven't thought about this much at all.(3) This section does not apply:
(a) To a person who is summoning medical or other emergency
help if no other person in the vehicle is capable of summoning
help;
(b) To a person using a mobile communication device for the
purpose of farming or agricultural operations
(c) To a person operating an ambulance or emergency vehicle; or
(d) To a person using a hands-free accessory.
I've dropped a note to Bonnie Altus (AB7ZQ), the ARRL Oregon Section Chair, asking her what the ARRL is doing to ensure that Oregon doesn't ban mobile amateur operation.
I know this isn't exactly a popular opinion, but if we go to the trouble of banning cell phone use while driving, why shouldn't we ban amateur radio operations? I've seen the (in my opinion) comical view that somehow amateur radio operation is less distracting than using a cell phone, but I don't think we really want to try to make that argument, as it is simply not credible. I also think that it would be similarly untenable to merely try to sneak in through some kind of "public service" argument.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm asking, if you think banning cell phones is okay, then what justification do we really have for arguing for an amateur radio exception?
Mark K6HX
Mark,
ReplyDeleteFirst, there are real, scientific studies (I've seen references to them from time to time as these issues get debated) that have demonstrated that half-duplex voice operations are less distracting to drivers than full-duplex telephony. There are some theories that seek to explain these observations, and you can accept them or not, but the data is the data.
Also, there simply aren't that many hams. Providing a ham radio exclusion generates a very marginal risk of increased social harm simply because the proportion of drivers who are hams is rather tiny. The social benefit of not disabling hams (to say nothing of all the other users of two-way half-duplex radiotelephony) from mobile operations may well outweigh that marginal social cost.
Finally, there is the possibility that the FCC will choose to preempt the regulation; excluding hams from the scope of the law avoids the risk of litigation in that regard. Burdensome restrictions on mobile operation would tend to interfere with the FCC's stated purposes for the amateur radio service, and they'd be well within their authority to preempt.
Without having seen the studies, I won't comment on their validity. But I do think there is an interesting distinction that seems to be important: most legislation does make an exception for hands-free use of a cell phone. The distinction is therefore not whether the communication is full or half duplex, but whether the operator has both hands on the wheel (or at least, at the ready) or not. If you'd argue that the studies are signficant, then it implies that cell phone use with a hands free device should be banned as well, as cell phone use is full duplex, and presumably as distracting whether a hands free device is used or not.
ReplyDeleteI also find the idea that hams should get an exemption based upon their limited numbers is a fairly weak argument. The "social benefit" (presumably to provide communications in the case of emergency) is already well provided in the proposed legislation. I think that you'd be hard pressed to argue that hams deserve the right to rag chew, where such a right is denied to the average citizen.
Your last argument is in some sense the most convincing, except that the FCC would be considerably overstepping its bounds by overriding the states proper interest in regulating public safety. It is far from clear that this is within the FCC's mandate. You'd have to demonstrate that their concerns were irrational, and I think that would be much more difficult.
I'm interested. I'll dig around for studies that seem relevent.
It's interesting that the ARRL doesn't actually make any specific reference to studies that demonstrate a difference in driver's attention between cell phone and radio use, but merely use this rather weak statement:
ReplyDelete"The ARRL is aware of no evidence that such operation contributes
to driver inattention. Quite the contrary: radio amateurs are public service-minded
individuals who utilize their radio-equipped motor vehicles to assist others, and they are
focused on driving in the execution of that function."
This statement is also weak. Most cell phone users are probably public service-minded individuals who would use their cell phones to assist others as well. And, in fact, when they do so, they are protected by most state laws. The idea that radio amateurs are "focused on driving" is just an assertion, and could easily be claimed by anyone who objects to the more general cell phone ban, and with just as much credibility.
At least some of the same studies also demonstrated that hands-free operation does not materially decrease distraction, so, yes, the bill is defective in that regard as well. If you're going to ban cell phone usage for distraction, you should do so whether or not it's used hands-free, at least if you're going to make a decision based on the available scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe proposed legislation would not cover amateur radio operators providing emergency communication support; the legislation only permits you to use a cell phone while driving to summon emergency services and only if no other person is available in the vehicle to do so. This does not appear to me to cover the provision of emergency communication services.
To override a state regulation, the FCC merely has to show that the regulation impinges on an activity over which the FCC has exclusive control under federal law. There's no question that the amateur radio service is exclusively governed by the FCC. There's no legal requirement to show that the concerns are "irrational"; they can override state's interests whenever it suits them. The only effective restraint on the FCC in this regard is that if the FCC ran around nilly-willy nullifying state regulations, Congress might get involved.
I'm distraught to see as much anecdotal citation of 'studies' without any hard references so did some homework myself.
ReplyDeletefrom: http://safety.blr.com/news.aspx?id=99091
"Drivers using cell phones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."
...
"The institute found that both handheld and hands-free phones increased the risk of crashes."
Part of the problem with these handsfree laws is that they're based on anecdotal evidence that hands-free devices are safer than using your hands, which apparently is false. This study came out in 2005 and was available when legislators were drafting many of these laws (esp. the CA ones), but they either didn't do their homework or ignored these results. Either conclusion is disappointing.
It's a law neither enforceable or practical. Even if it passes, it won't matter.
ReplyDeleteIt is not very well enforced in the UK. The UK does have an exemption for half duplex "two way radio" which allows for taxi drivers and all the other users of such equipment. You can still be charged with dangerous driving if the police think you are driving dangerously.
ReplyDeleteIt took a small amount of effort to learn to operate the radio and drive at the same time meaning it is not entirely effortless. As has been mentioned elsewhere online, amateurs will say things like "Going off air for a bit, junction coming up" even if hands-free. I think an amateur is more likely to just not respond if driving needs attention and that is accepted, whereas a mobile phone is always on.
Hands-free use is becoming more common.