[Mldxcc] Fwd: [narcc] Calif Hands-Free Regulation AB-1785

[Rick WA6NHC]

After a career of driving large heavy vehicles, with lights and siren to 
part the sea of traffic, while operating a radio, while doing scene size 
up, while making a plan of action, while ordering more staffing and 
equipment to meet that plan, while telling my crew the plan...

Driving and watching while talking is a non-issue to me, even in LA 
traffic (I was there last week and survived without incident). I 
understand that multitasking ability varies according to the person and 
it's not consistent throughout the day (hello adrenaline!).  It's only 
when you exceed your ability that it becomes distraction.

If CA continues on this path, soon the driver may as well be automated 
since they won't be allowed to speak, drink, eat or listen to anything 
BUT drive, by LAW.  I'm a grown adult person, I don't need a nanny and 
stupidity such as this poorly written law is one of the reasons I'm 
leaving the state for one with some common sense.  I'm frankly as much 
or more concerned about the drivers under the influence of drugs, for 
which there is no standard or quick field test to demonstrate 
intoxication... or a fatigued driver.... or someone that doesn't 
understand that the stopping ability of semis or those with trailers is 
not what their car can manage (don't cut me off, I'll squish you if it 
requires a rapid stop).

If this law stands as written, no more SkyWARN, no more public event 
communication, no more RACES or ARES; nothing other than operating from 
a fixed position (and NOT even sitting behind a wheel).  No more cabs, 
deliveries, trucking and more for the business folks; say goodbye to the 
fragile economy.

Bluetooth is an option, but I routinely have three radios on when I'm on 
the road and there is no simple way to manage them from one device, 
while driving other than reach over and adjust the controls, including a 
hand mike.  And after more than 40 years of it, I'm used to it.

I'm more hopeful for the ARRL to step in while we wait for a judge to 
throw the law out as too vague and it's a violation of our FEDERAL 
licensed ability which is not subject to state control.  But with the 
current mindset of the judges here, it may be a LONG wait.  That will 
cripple our ability to provide public service, which is part of OUR 
mandate for being licensed.

Rick nhc


On 2/3/2017 10:22 AM, Alan Maenchen wrote:
> Not to jump on anyone, but my personal experience may differ from others.
>
> Back when I first became active again after some years of QRT, I got 
> an old 2 meter rig and put it in the car. During a QSO with someone, I 
> ran a red light in Vallejo and damn near got wiped out. Thanks to the 
> other drivers who were watching out!. If it wasn't for the horrified 
> look on my wife's face coupled with screeching tires, honks, I 
> wouldn't have known I even did that.
>
> Distracted driving is distracted driving no matter what the cause: 
> Screaming kids in the back seat, texting, cell phones, even ham radio. 
> I'll never operate from the car again unless the car is stopped .. or 
> someone else is driving. The consequences, and I don't mean a ticket, 
> are just not worth it.
>
> 73, Alan  AD6E
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Dennis Moore <dennis at mail4life.net 
> <mailto:dennis at mail4life.net>> wrote:
>
>     I've asked Bob W6RGG for an update on the ARRL's take on it, and
>     if they're doing anything about it. I also asked if there was a
>     California-based effort we could get behind to ensure we're
>     focusing our efforts on the right place. I'll report back with
>     what he says.
>
>     My personal take on Change.org petitions is that unless you obtain
>     hundreds of thousands of signatures then nobody at the capitol
>     will pay attention to them. I feel if we're going to get behind a
>     petition then it should be something that can legally cause a
>     change, not just a loud voice.
>
>     That being said, I'll sign this Change.org petition and cross my
>     fingers that it does lead somewhere. Even if it doesn't reach
>     Sacramento, maybe it will generate enough conversation to get an
>     actual challenge moving.
>
>     Note: I am NOT endorsing this as President of MLDXCC, just as a
>     ham with a horse in this race.
>
>     73, Dennis NJ6G
>
>
>     On 2/3/2017 06:23, Chuck Tifft via Mldxcc wrote:
>
>
>         I think we should all get behind this, and try to get this
>         thing overturned. A really poorly thought out law, that
>         effects way more things than it should.
>
>         Chuck W6RD
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Mldxcc mailing list
>     Mldxcc at contesting.com <mailto:Mldxcc at contesting.com>
>     http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/mldxcc
>     <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/mldxcc>
>     Need list help? Contact mldxcc-owner at contesting.com
>     <mailto:mldxcc-owner at contesting.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mldxcc mailing list
> Mldxcc at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/mldxcc
> Need list help? Contact mldxcc-owner at contesting.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/mldxcc/attachments/20170203/402a5fb5/attachment-0001.html>