No CB talking permitted

That's why I said what I did in post #30.

 

Not to argue at all: it doesn't affect me since Amateur Radio is exempt. It is interesting to note that a number of states who attempted to regulate, restrict, stop Amateur Radio had to modify such laws because of Federal Preemption. A couple of cities passed ordinances saying that Amateur radio stations could not TRANSMIT within their city limits---only to be warned to back off. One of the significant facts to note is the issue of "distracted driving" at the center of all of it. This is the main part of local, or state, laws against "distracted driving". And what is the thing that has brought this issue to the forefront? DISTRACTED DRIVING! And the main thing that causes "distracted driving"? CELL PHONES ! It is NOT the Amateur Radio, not the commercial radio NOR the CB radio, but the CELL PHONE that is the culprit!!!!! Remember the CB craze of the 70's? Funny thing! Nobody screamed about "distracted driving" when literally MILLIONS of CB radios were installed by non-radio savvy people! Nobody talked about ham radios causing accidents back then! And nobody threatened lawsuits against commercial mobile radio stations. "Distracted driving" was a non-issue tho millions of two way radios were in use! Only when the cellphone came into everyday use did someone go, "GASP!!!! WE got to restrict 'distracted driving'", so despite NO evidence supporting any contribution from TWR's (two way radio) ignorant lawmakers decided they could go after TWR's even they don't know what the hell they are talking about.!!!!! Statistics showing "distracted driving" with regard to two way radios simply don't exist, and the reason they don't exist is, because there are not enough documented instances of such happening. So what's the difference?

It is, you recall, the CELL PHONE that is the culprit in this issue and that is because of the very nature of its operation: Duplex transmission. Because the user transmits AND receives simultaneously, it is easy to become caught up in the operation of the phone and lose track of one's primary duty: driving the car. It almost FORCES the user to forsake driving in favor of the phone. OTH, the CB, ham radio, or commercial two way user listens to a ONE WAY transmission, formulates a response (which he can do without abandoning driving), THEN responds BACK to the message. The operator has time (mostly) to perform these tasks as opposed as the cellphone where too many things can "pile up" in an instant. Where the cell user may be distracted already by the constant stream of info, the TWR does not cause such to occur so fast.

CB radio is covered by CFR Part 95 of US Code. CB users have been permitted to operate mobile radios for decades which *may* involve something called "precedent". Now I freely admit that I am not a lawyer not do I wish to be one. But by virtue of "precedent" and Federal preemption, a clever lawyer from a savvy truckers' association might be able to pluck Delaware's feathers. By separating CB Radio from cellphones, emphasizing the difference in their operation, AND demanding the State(s) SHOW where CB radio, or any TWR, has ever caused "distracted driving" in any significant degree, it just might work. It is what happened in the cases where Amateur radio was able to get attempted restrictions removed. Amateur radio is licensed. CB radio is licensed. Why should they be treated differently under the law?

 

Sounds like a simple liability issue for the company in an effort to cut insurance costs. Similar to turning down the trucks to get a better rate. It's not a safety issue, it's a money game. How long before they ban using an atlas, a gps unit, lighting a cigarette or opening a soda ? Hell, these days you can be pulled over because an unseen crosswind moved the truck over in the lane and you corrected it .... but not fast enough to avoid a swerve that was "at the officer's discretion" viewed as inattentive and unsafe. Hence, here's your sign and your fine. We don't care if you beat the ticket. Just show us your money, pay the fine, and the ticket will magically go away. Have a safe trip.

 

If it were up to me (and its certainly not), I'll do away with about EVERY law passed since 1970 and start over! What we are seeing is a march to total control of US society in the name of "public good". If the "do-gooders" have their way, they will make robots out of us by 2025 by slowly chipping away at every shed of personal choice our forebears fought and died for. I would RATHER DIE by a mistake I made than to be made totally "safe" by some do-gooder
snotnose's "safety invention" that restricts more and more of my freedom to choose. OF course SOME laws are good and contribute to the maintenance of society's ability to function. But many of these laws and regulations simply go WAY too far. I don't WANT a car that drives itself, d a m n it!!!!! I WILL wear my seatbelt (by choice)---even if it weren't a law. I just resent it being a law. I don't WANT to be told what to do! Mostly where it comes to ridiculous and unnecessary laws---like telling us we can't USE radio when there's no BASIS for such a law. Ah............, I guess I should've been born in 1908 rather than '48.

 

Well, you ran down a list of all the "distractions" even to the point of using ANY device that transmits sound (ie. bluetooth, DOT hearing test).
Sounds like if it were up to you, we'd have to sit in a truck and drive for 8 hrs or more, listening to nothing but pure engine noise in harmony with the steel belts on the asphalt. (actually I do that quite often for extended times, but it's MY choice)
No radio (no music, no talk radio, etc). Just how do you think this will have an effect on #3 in your list, Fatigue?
I can tell you that, just by having changes in sound, radio programs, or CB, it makes a world of difference in resistance to road fatigue. Your "distraction" hypothesis is penny wise and dollar foolish, to be honest.

Also, you mention "changing channels or adjusting the squelch" as being in that "distraction" category. How about reaching down in the dark to turn your wipers switch on, or for that matter having to be distracted by those 50-150 droplets of water on the windshield between each wiper pass?
My point is, this can get carried away. I change channels or adjust squelch rarely, and even when doing so, am no more distracted than the time it takes to periodically check my mirrors.
My CB has been a direct safety aid in countless experiences, while 0 times as any type of distraction. PPL need to think it thru.

Dougs, I agree. But it seems what they are trying to do is... effectively take away any ability for you to even know about any possible dangers, therefore how could you be negligent if, with company policy, you never had any means (ie. CB) of knowing ahead of time.
A company that does not allow CB use is definitely a company I don't want to work for. For me, even sometimes listening to the nonsense on Ch19, keeps me "amused" and awake.

 

This also is a result of "Nanny state" thinking and 'progressive' politicians who are no longer responsive TO the people they are to serve. They take on a air of superiority and believe they must "take care" of us because Mr and Mrs Average American lack the intelligence to conduct their own lives. In another sense we have abdicated our own responsibilities in favor of such nanny state thinking and devices that take over our lives! We should be taught by our parents, & later our teachers, not our politicians, to evaluate the risk and the consequences of all of our actions as well as operating a cellphone and/or "texting" while driving. It is NOT the two way radio nor the AM/FM radio, or the occasional adjustment of the vehicle's accessories, but the cellphone and the societal results of cellphones, Ipods, and other devices that take away attention away from driving. If the CB had be a major cause of "distracted driving" in the 70's (prior to these other devices) it would become a problem THEN. There were MILLIONS of CB radios installed in cars and trucks, but no one brought up this "new" distraction------until now. So the false solution is to ban anything and everything! It sounds good to ignorant politicians who "think" they know anything at all about electronics, but anybody can throw out the baby with the bath water and "solve" something.

The real individual solution is for responsible drivers to eschew the cellphone. Only answer it when it IS safe to do so (light traffic, few driving "tasks" to perform). Pull over to MAKE calls or use hands-free devices. It has NOTHING to do with a CB or any two way radio in so far as driving is concerned. States and cities do this because 1) they are ignorant of the actual impact of TWO WAY radios (which is little to none), 2)they think they CAN regulate it;they cannot due to current FCC law. 3)they count on the ignorance of the public of said law to force their will upon people, hoping that people will simple roll over, accept their dictatorship and pay a fine.

Legally, they CANNOT ban CB radios. Your company can, of course: its THEIR truck. Should the state run into a real smart A S S with an attitude AND a knowledge of FCC law, they'd be in for a surprise! You see, this is the REAL reason they permitted Amateur Radio, altho they are NOT going to TELL you that! WHY? Because amateur radio is a LICENSED service Its operations and the regulations are governed SOLELY by FCC in the USA! Here's the little thing they don't want you to know! CB RADIO IS A LICENSED SERVICE, TOO. GOVERNED BY FCC REGULATIONS ALSO! SO IS COMMERCIAL TWO WAY--AND POLICE--AND --FIRE-AND--RESCUE--AND SO ON!!!!!!!! With the exception of interference complaints specific to CB radios via an FCC law signed by Clinton in 2000, local authorities have ##### to say about what people do with a two way radio!!! They'd have to change FEDERAL law to get that done.
No one has challenged local ordinances WRT two-way radio-----------yet: its too new a concept. But sooner or later, unless they change Federal laws, some fat ##*ed little bubba sheriff's gonna get his rotund belly handed back to him with a real smack-down! It'll cost him a LOT of "doughnuts" to recover! Stay tuned!

GF

 

Gadfly,
You earn 10 gold stars in my book! Well stated & agree 100%, every bit of it!

 

Stay tuned! It'll happen. Some little fat cop'll confiscate some trucker's CB who happens to know the US code and take him and his little p**ant state to Federal court. Another thing is, FCC is ON RECORD with statements in support of and encouragement of Amateur Radio in mobiles! This is prior to all the brouhaha about "distracted driving". Once something like that is on record, it is HARD, if not impossible, to take BACK! Taken to the next step by a good communications lawyer, it can be pointed out that CB, as well as Amateur Radio, are licensed and governed by FCC--NOT by the state, county or city! Therefore it should get the SAME treatment on the Federal level. If both radio services are legitimate services---and they ARE---then HOW can the same statements not be used as precedent in court! (snicker)

The locals are counting on the average joe not knowing such things in order to bully us into compliance. Tell you one thing: If those b******S come after MY radio, I'll be at the lawyer's office so fast, they'll feel the breeze from it!!!!! If you'll look at every instance thus far where locals tried to ban or regulate amateur radio, they discovered that they could NOT for the reasons stated! Being licensed, CB is NO different under the law.

There are many ways a clever lawyer could have a field day with this--even MAKE 'em PROVE where CB radio was a factor in "distracted driving"!

Your Honor, Go Ahead: MAKE MY DAY!!!!!!

 

Brand new to this form. Are we allowed to ask what company is as stupid as to think they can banned these valuable tools? Unfortunately I do think this may start a trend with other companies if it does lower insurance.