When they came after the cell phones, I didn't speak up because I had Ham radio

 From Amateur radio Newsline this week:

PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA DISTRACTED-DRIVING LAW WORRIES HAMS

STEPHEN/ANCHOR: Our top story takes us to Pennsylvania, which is hoping to become the next state in the US to ban most drivers from using hand-held wireless devices while on the road. The bill is stirring emotions in a worried ham radio community, as we hear from Sel Embee KB3 T Zed D.

SEL: The Pennsylvania State Senate is poised to consider a measure that would prohibit motorists' use of hand-held communication devices, especially cellphones. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Rosemary Brown, passed in the state House of Representatives in early April. The other house of the state Assembly - the Senate - is its last stop before the governor's desk, where it would become law once signed.

The bill does contain some exemptions: handhelds' use is permitted, for example, by emergency responders. According to several reports, amateur radio was also exempted in the original language of the bill but was later removed in the House Transportation Committee.

Miles A. Wicker, Jr., W3ICK, the ARRL's Pennsylvania State government liaison, told Newsline in an email that the bill, known as SB 37, remains a "hot topic" among amateurs throughout the state. He said he reached out to Nolan Ritchie, executive director of the Senate transportation committee to explain that without an amateur radio exemption, the impact on hams would be damaging, especially for those involved in emergency communications. Miles told Newsline: "He thanked me for providing the information and stated that they are working toward a resolution...As of today, this is where we sit."

Meanwhile, Senator Brown's office did not immediately respond to an email and phone call from Newsline.

This is Sel Embee KB3TZD. 

I've said for years that when they started coming for the cell phones amateur radio and CB and everything else would eventually go along with it.

And as an aside, the way most States laws are written on the subject I can be cited for texting via voice control where I'm not even touching the phone.

To send a text both in my big truck and in my four-wheeler, I touch a button on my steering wheel. Say "send a text to my wife... I'm on my way home"

The system immediately responds that the text has been sent and I'm immediately guilty of a crime.Here we have another case where laws written to address a perceived problem with technology cannot possibly keep up with the technology itself. But this goes even beyond that.

Now, before you start tuning up with "Blutooth is the answer....".... no, it's not. We're seeing reports out of California that the NTSB is pushing for states to legislate even hands free coms out of existence.  The draw of course is federal money. Perhaps I should say the BRIBE.

Let's examine the repercussions of even 40% of states adopting these laws.What will happen if we keep going the way the NTSB wants us to go?

Nobody makes mobile radios anymore because they're simply not selling. That one seems rather obvious. The rest extends from that premise:

For the last 30 years or so, new hams has been to buy a mobile FM rate and stick it out of power supply. So, with this law being installed in even less than half the states.... there are now less new amateurs because they simply can't afford their first radio Fewer new Hams.

With Fewer new hams, and the current hams dying off, the government argues that there's less interest in amateur radio and so reallocates the spectrum.

As has already been pointed out no more weather spotters. No more emergency communication volunteers. Why on earth would anyone take the tiome and expense to set up a mobile rig when you can't bloody well USE it?

Oh... it's not just Ham radio the Federal government is trying to outlaw. I was able to avoid this accident years ago because someone called me on the radio and told me of the problem when both of us were driving....and I'm alive today because of that....  an outcome the NTSB is trying to outlaw.

Are we really sure this is the road we want to go down?

Addendum one:

 I suggest that the hands-free laws as originally proposed and in some cases enacted years ago were targeting text messages because they had to be manually typed out. These laws were enacted before voice to text. Laws about such things can never keep up with the actual technology.II further suggest laws about technology and its uses very seldom keep up with reality. Given the machinations of government there's no way it can.

That's one reason that we as ham operators have a wide latitude about what we can do on our spaces of spectrum. Even the government has come to recognize this, as we observe for example, the disappearance of the symbol rates just recently, ...about 15 years too late. 

The move by the NTSB, OTOH, is simply a power grab. (One that fortunately is held off for now.) The old saying applies, here: "The desire to save something invariably indicates an overwhelming desire to rule over it". And mark me here....eventually, they'll try to enact this stuff again.

Addendum two:


It appears that the Penn Senate has passed the bill, with an exemption for Ham ops. Apparently the ARRL district folks were successful in their efforts. Normally, I'm the first one to ream the League a new one, because they so often deserve it.

In this case, however credit where due.

I do wonder, though, just what they did to bring this about. I suppose we won't see an answer to that point, but I'll welcome it when/if  it shows up.

Now, I should also say that during these events I saw, more than once, the argument about "distracted driving" and "if it saves one life, let's do the ban". This is a nonsensical argument in my view.

Oh, no doubt... It's a very humanitarian position to take, of course. But if that's the standard that we are to be guided by, then why are we allowed to drive at all? Why are we allowed to leave the house? Why are we allowed to get out of bed? Wouldn't that be the safest place?

You'll  most likely say those three questions are beyond the absurd, and I totally agree... that's absolutely right.  Thing is, often questions that we face are more easily answered when the extreme boundaries are defined.  So, where is the demarcation line beyond which absurdity exists in this matter? 

If that demarcation line has moved over the years, why so? What makes the topic at hand a "crisis" whereas 20 years ago the kind of regulations in this bill would have been laughed out of the room?  Are we facing this question now because the technology has changed or is it some other factor?