September 2009 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [arrl-odv:18089] RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply
by Joel Harrison 05 Sep '09

05 Sep '09

I agree completely with Dave. Simply provide the letter in its entirety and let it stand on its own. It is clear enough. As Chris said previously, we got more than we thought we would! ZN _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:46 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18089] RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply I have already given the correspondence (both directions) to John Chwat and Dan Henderson with the idea that it be used to support our legislative efforts to keep Amateur Radio from being swept into the same distracted-driving basket as text messaging and cellphones. I believe it is important to our credibility, as well as to avoid goading NSC into issuing a possibly damaging clarification, that we be very careful not to claim that the NSC letter says more than it does. The best way to do that is to provide the letter in its entirety and not simply to quote from it the parts we like best. Dave K1ZZ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:56 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply My letter to NSC was not confidential, in fact it was reported on ARRLWeb. The response is not confidential either. I see no reason why it can't be shared. If someone else does, speak up! ZN _____ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply I sent this early this morning, but used an incorrect address for myself. Therefore, it wasn't accepted by the system. ;-( Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:20 AM To: 'arrl-odv' Subject: RE: National Safety Council reply Joel, Your latest message caught me just as I was going QRT, but the topic is so timely for Ohio that I felt compelled to review your note and the reply you forwarded with it. Tnx for sharing the letter promptly. I am quite comforted that NSC has expressed no reason for specific concern over Amateur Radio as a known cause of automobile accidents. As suggested in your transmittal note, this is very heartening to hear. However, as I suspect you also noted, President Froetscher conversely failed to recognize AR as being a non-contributor to motor vehicle accidents. Her decision not to take a position that is even more supportive of AR is not surprising. >From a scientific standpoint, one cannot prove a negative. On the other hand, few legislators are scientists so maybe the "preponderance of evidence" or such rule might be applicable here. In view of the existence of active cell phone distracted driving legislation in Ohio, I would like to ask two questions concerning Ms. Froetscher's letter. - May I share the NSC letter with the Ohio SM and his SGL at least for their knowledge and possible use in dealing with the Ohio State Legislature? - To what extent, if any, would it be acceptable to share the letter with - i.e. would it be OK for me to share the letter with the Ohio SM/SGL on a confidential basis? Would it be OK only to tell them the NSC has stated it has no evidence to indicate AR is a cause of driving accidents? Would it be OK to share a digital copy of the letter with the SM/SGL? Similarly, to what degree is it OK to disclose the letter to Ohio legislators? - Finally, has it been determined yet how best to suggest (to SMs and SGLs) using the NSC letter to support Field defenses against distracted driving bills? I'm not certain the above questions have been asked in the best sequence or if they are truly the best questions to ask. They might help get the ball rolling, though (in case it isn't already rolling). Nice work in getting NSC to document AR is not a major cause of hazardous, distracted driving. Tnx, 73, CL, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply You will recall I recently senta letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:18091] Re: National Safety Council reply
by Howard Huntington 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

OK, Joel, just had to get that one in. Probably more too. Howie, K9KM ________________________________ From: Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 12:54:46 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18086] Re: National Safety Council reply Howie - THANKS!!! I unintentionally left that important item off my short (but in means complete) list! ZN ________________________________ From: Howard Huntington [mailto:howard_huntington_k9km@ymail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:38 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18086] Re: National Safety Council reply Joel said (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!) and of course RF Safety. For years we have had the usual sidebar in QST articles, test questions that relate to RF Safety, and the OET 65 standards for Maximum Permissible Exposure that we all certify that we understand and comply with when we renew. We must continue to do our part to maintain awareness of these issues. Howie, K9KM ________________________________ From: Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 10:51:02 AM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18079] Re: National Safety Council reply Hi Marty, Appreciate the comments. I don't believe anyone is suggesting or will suggest we change our policy based on Ms. Froetscher's suggestion. I certainly am not. I was very pleased to see her comment that NSC's pursuit would be based on factual, scientific evidence and none suggested there was an issue related to amateur radio. I do believe, though, that promoting safety in all of our activities is something we must continue to do. A side note along those lines - I was pleased to see the recent short QST article on tower safety. While not related to the specific topic at hand, I believe we have a responsibility as the national organization to promote safety in all of our amateur radio activities, as we have done many times in the past. I do agree with her, regardless of an individual's ability to multi-task, that performing any activity while operating a motor vehicle that could distract from the primary objective (in this case, operating a motor vehicle) does contain some risk. Of course, that equally applies to any activity you are performing and especially activities related to amateur radio (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!) 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi(a)socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 2:45 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18077] Re:National Safety Council reply Hi, Joel. While I'm pleased to learn that NSC is not looking to promote laws prohibiting Amateur Radio mobile operation any time soon, I'm not sure that discouraging mobile operation other than in "disaster emergencies" is consistent with our - or at least my constituents' - position on the use of Amateur equipment while driving. Some people can multi-task well and others cannot. A blanket policy along the lines suggested by Ms. Froetscher is, IMHO, not a suitable substitute for the exercise of individual judgment and would be inapproriate. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- >From: Joel Harrison >To: arrl-odv >Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:18 PM >Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply > > > >You will recall I recently sent a letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. > >Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. > >73 Joel W5ZN >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18089] RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply
by K8JE 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Joel, Dave, FWIW, I support fully the course you have taken regarding the NSC letter. It would be especially foolish to attempt to pressure NSC to come up with a statement that more strongly favors Amateur Radio. From a scientific perspective, again, it would be fully inappropriate for the Council to issue a statement more strongly in favor of Amateur Radio without actual data to support it. 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:46 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18089] RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply I have already given the correspondence (both directions) to John Chwat and Dan Henderson with the idea that it be used to support our legislative efforts to keep Amateur Radio from being swept into the same distracted-driving basket as text messaging and cellphones. I believe it is important to our credibility, as well as to avoid goading NSC into issuing a possibly damaging clarification, that we be very careful not to claim that the NSC letter says more than it does. The best way to do that is to provide the letter in its entirety and not simply to quote from it the parts we like best. Dave K1ZZ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:56 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply My letter to NSC was not confidential, in fact it was reported on ARRLWeb. The response is not confidential either. I see no reason why it can't be shared. If someone else does, speak up! ZN _____ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply I sent this early this morning, but used an incorrect address for myself. Therefore, it wasn't accepted by the system. ;-( Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:20 AM To: 'arrl-odv' Subject: RE: National Safety Council reply Joel, Your latest message caught me just as I was going QRT, but the topic is so timely for Ohio that I felt compelled to review your note and the reply you forwarded with it. Tnx for sharing the letter promptly. I am quite comforted that NSC has expressed no reason for specific concern over Amateur Radio as a known cause of automobile accidents. As suggested in your transmittal note, this is very heartening to hear. However, as I suspect you also noted, President Froetscher conversely failed to recognize AR as being a non-contributor to motor vehicle accidents. Her decision not to take a position that is even more supportive of AR is not surprising. >From a scientific standpoint, one cannot prove a negative. On the other hand, few legislators are scientists so maybe the "preponderance of evidence" or such rule might be applicable here. In view of the existence of active cell phone distracted driving legislation in Ohio, I would like to ask two questions concerning Ms. Froetscher's letter. - May I share the NSC letter with the Ohio SM and his SGL at least for their knowledge and possible use in dealing with the Ohio State Legislature? - To what extent, if any, would it be acceptable to share the letter with - i.e. would it be OK for me to share the letter with the Ohio SM/SGL on a confidential basis? Would it be OK only to tell them the NSC has stated it has no evidence to indicate AR is a cause of driving accidents? Would it be OK to share a digital copy of the letter with the SM/SGL? Similarly, to what degree is it OK to disclose the letter to Ohio legislators? - Finally, has it been determined yet how best to suggest (to SMs and SGLs) using the NSC letter to support Field defenses against distracted driving bills? I'm not certain the above questions have been asked in the best sequence or if they are truly the best questions to ask. They might help get the ball rolling, though (in case it isn't already rolling). Nice work in getting NSC to document AR is not a major cause of hazardous, distracted driving. Tnx, 73, CL, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply You will recall I recently senta letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:18089] RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

I have already given the correspondence (both directions) to John Chwat and Dan Henderson with the idea that it be used to support our legislative efforts to keep Amateur Radio from being swept into the same distracted-driving basket as text messaging and cellphones. I believe it is important to our credibility, as well as to avoid goading NSC into issuing a possibly damaging clarification, that we be very careful not to claim that the NSC letter says more than it does. The best way to do that is to provide the letter in its entirety and not simply to quote from it the parts we like best. Dave K1ZZ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:56 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply My letter to NSC was not confidential, in fact it was reported on ARRLWeb. The response is not confidential either. I see no reason why it can't be shared. If someone else does, speak up! ZN ________________________________ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply I sent this early this morning, but used an incorrect address for myself. Therefore, it wasn't accepted by the system. ;-( Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio ________________________________ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:20 AM To: 'arrl-odv' Subject: RE: National Safety Council reply Joel, Your latest message caught me just as I was going QRT, but the topic is so timely for Ohio that I felt compelled to review your note and the reply you forwarded with it. Tnx for sharing the letter promptly. I am quite comforted that NSC has expressed no reason for specific concern over Amateur Radio as a known cause of automobile accidents. As suggested in your transmittal note, this is very heartening to hear. However, as I suspect you also noted, President Froetscher conversely failed to recognize AR as being a non-contributor to motor vehicle accidents. Her decision not to take a position that is even more supportive of AR is not surprising. From a scientific standpoint, one cannot prove a negative. On the other hand, few legislators are scientists so maybe the "preponderance of evidence" or such rule might be applicable here. In view of the existence of active cell phone distracted driving legislation in Ohio, I would like to ask two questions concerning Ms. Froetscher's letter. - May I share the NSC letter with the Ohio SM and his SGL at least for their knowledge and possible use in dealing with the Ohio State Legislature? - To what extent, if any, would it be acceptable to share the letter with - i.e. would it be OK for me to share the letter with the Ohio SM/SGL on a confidential basis? Would it be OK only to tell them the NSC has stated it has no evidence to indicate AR is a cause of driving accidents? Would it be OK to share a digital copy of the letter with the SM/SGL? Similarly, to what degree is it OK to disclose the letter to Ohio legislators? - Finally, has it been determined yet how best to suggest (to SMs and SGLs) using the NSC letter to support Field defenses against distracted driving bills? I'm not certain the above questions have been asked in the best sequence or if they are truly the best questions to ask. They might help get the ball rolling, though (in case it isn't already rolling). Nice work in getting NSC to document AR is not a major cause of hazardous, distracted driving. Tnx, 73, CL, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio ________________________________ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply You will recall I recently senta letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply
by Joel Harrison 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

My letter to NSC was not confidential, in fact it was reported on ARRLWeb. The response is not confidential either. I see no reason why it can't be shared. If someone else does, speak up! ZN _____ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply I sent this early this morning, but used an incorrect address for myself. Therefore, it wasn't accepted by the system. ;-( Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:20 AM To: 'arrl-odv' Subject: RE: National Safety Council reply Joel, Your latest message caught me just as I was going QRT, but the topic is so timely for Ohio that I felt compelled to review your note and the reply you forwarded with it. Tnx for sharing the letter promptly. I am quite comforted that NSC has expressed no reason for specific concern over Amateur Radio as a known cause of automobile accidents. As suggested in your transmittal note, this is very heartening to hear. However, as I suspect you also noted, President Froetscher conversely failed to recognize AR as being a non-contributor to motor vehicle accidents. Her decision not to take a position that is even more supportive of AR is not surprising. >From a scientific standpoint, one cannot prove a negative. On the other hand, few legislators are scientists so maybe the "preponderance of evidence" or such rule might be applicable here. In view of the existence of active cell phone distracted driving legislation in Ohio, I would like to ask two questions concerning Ms. Froetscher's letter. - May I share the NSC letter with the Ohio SM and his SGL at least for their knowledge and possible use in dealing with the Ohio State Legislature? - To what extent, if any, would it be acceptable to share the letter with - i.e. would it be OK for me to share the letter with the Ohio SM/SGL on a confidential basis? Would it be OK only to tell them the NSC has stated it has no evidence to indicate AR is a cause of driving accidents? Would it be OK to share a digital copy of the letter with the SM/SGL? Similarly, to what degree is it OK to disclose the letter to Ohio legislators? - Finally, has it been determined yet how best to suggest (to SMs and SGLs) using the NSC letter to support Field defenses against distracted driving bills? I'm not certain the above questions have been asked in the best sequence or if they are truly the best questions to ask. They might help get the ball rolling, though (in case it isn't already rolling). Nice work in getting NSC to document AR is not a major cause of hazardous, distracted driving. Tnx, 73, CL, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply You will recall I recently senta letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18086] Re: National Safety Council reply
by Joel Harrison 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Howie - THANKS!!! I unintentionally left that important item off my short (but in means complete) list! ZN _____ From: Howard Huntington [mailto:howard_huntington_k9km@ymail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:38 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18086] Re: National Safety Council reply Joel said (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!) and of course RF Safety. For years we have had the usual sidebar in QST articles, test questions that relate to RF Safety, and the OET 65 standards for Maximum Permissible Exposure that we all certify that we understand and comply with when we renew. We must continue to do our part to maintain awareness of these issues. Howie, K9KM _____ From: Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 10:51:02 AM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18079] Re: National Safety Council reply Hi Marty, Appreciate the comments. I don't believe anyone is suggesting or will suggest we change our policy based on Ms. Froetscher's suggestion. I certainly am not. I was very pleased to see her comment that NSC's pursuit would be based on factual, scientific evidence and none suggested there was an issue related to amateur radio. I do believe, though, that promoting safety in all of our activities is something we must continue to do. A side note along those lines - I was pleased to see the recent short QST article on tower safety. While not related to the specific topic at hand, I believe we have a responsibility as the national organization to promote safety in all of our amateur radio activities, as we have done many times in the past. I do agree with her, regardless of an individual's ability to multi-task, that performing any activity while operating a motor vehicle that could distract from the primary objective (in this case, operating a motor vehicle) does contain some risk. Of course, that equally applies to any activity you are performing and especially activities related to amateur radio (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!) 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi(a)socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 2:45 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18077] Re:National Safety Council reply Hi, Joel. While I'm pleased to learn that NSC is not looking to promote laws prohibiting Amateur Radio mobile operation any time soon, I'm not sure that discouraging mobile operation other than in "disaster emergencies" is consistent with our - or at least my constituents' - position on the use of Amateur equipment while driving. Some people can multi-task well and others cannot. A blanket policy along the lines suggested by Ms. Froetscher is, IMHO, not a suitable substitute for the exercise of individual judgment and would be inapproriate. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison <mailto:w5zn@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:18 PM Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply You will recall I recently sent a letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:18086] Re: National Safety Council reply
by Howard Huntington 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Joel said (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!) and of course RF Safety. For years we have had the usual sidebar in QST articles, test questions that relate to RF Safety, and the OET 65 standards for Maximum Permissible Exposure that we all certify that we understand and comply with when we renew. We must continue to do our part to maintain awareness of these issues. Howie, K9KM ________________________________ From: Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 10:51:02 AM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18079] Re: National Safety Council reply Hi Marty, Appreciate the comments. I don't believe anyone is suggesting or will suggest we change our policy based on Ms. Froetscher's suggestion. I certainly am not. I was very pleased to see her comment that NSC's pursuit would be based on factual, scientific evidence and none suggested there was an issue related to amateur radio. I do believe, though, that promoting safety in all of our activities is something we must continue to do. A side note along those lines - I was pleased to see the recent short QST article on tower safety. While not related to the specific topic at hand, I believe we have a responsibility as the national organization to promote safety in all of our amateur radio activities, as we have done many times in the past. I do agree with her, regardless of an individual's ability to multi-task, that performing any activity while operating a motor vehicle that could distract from the primary objective (in this case, operating a motor vehicle) does contain some risk. Of course, that equally applies to any activity you are performing and especially activities related to amateur radio (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!) 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi(a)socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 2:45 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18077] Re:National Safety Council reply Hi, Joel. While I'm pleased to learn that NSC is not looking to promote laws prohibiting Amateur Radio mobile operation any time soon, I'm not sure that discouraging mobile operation other than in "disaster emergencies" is consistent with our - or at least my constituents' - position on the use of Amateur equipment while driving. Some people can multi-task well and others cannot. A blanket policy along the lines suggested by Ms. Froetscher is, IMHO, not a suitable substitute for the exercise of individual judgment and would be inapproriate. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- >From: Joel Harrison >To: arrl-odv >Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:18 PM >Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply > > > >You will recall I recently sent a letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. > >Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. > >73 Joel W5ZN >

1 0

[arrl-odv:18085] FW: National Safety Council reply
by K8JE 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

I sent this early this morning, but used an incorrect address for myself. Therefore, it wasn't accepted by the system. ;-( Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 1:20 AM To: 'arrl-odv' Subject: RE: National Safety Council reply Joel, Your latest message caught me just as I was going QRT, but the topic is so timely for Ohio that I felt compelled to review your note and the reply you forwarded with it. Tnx for sharing the letter promptly. I am quite comforted that NSC has expressed no reason for specific concern over Amateur Radio as a known cause of automobile accidents. As suggested in your transmittal note, this is very heartening to hear. However, as I suspect you also noted, President Froetscher conversely failed to recognize AR as being a non-contributor to motor vehicle accidents. Her decision not to take a position that is even more supportive of AR is not surprising. >From a scientific standpoint, one cannot prove a negative. On the other hand, few legislators are scientists so maybe the "preponderance of evidence" or such rule might be applicable here. In view of the existence of active cell phone distracted driving legislation in Ohio, I would like to ask two questions concerning Ms. Froetscher's letter. - May I share the NSC letter with the Ohio SM and his SGL at least for their knowledge and possible use in dealing with the Ohio State Legislature? - To what extent, if any, would it be acceptable to share the letter with - i.e. would it be OK for me to share the letter with the Ohio SM/SGL on a confidential basis? Would it be OK only to tell them the NSC has stated it has no evidence to indicate AR is a cause of driving accidents? Would it be OK to share a digital copy of the letter with the SM/SGL? Similarly, to what degree is it OK to disclose the letter to Ohio legislators? - Finally, has it been determined yet how best to suggest (to SMs and SGLs) using the NSC letter to support Field defenses against distracted driving bills? I'm not certain the above questions have been asked in the best sequence or if they are truly the best questions to ask. They might help get the ball rolling, though (in case it isn't already rolling). Nice work in getting NSC to document AR is not a major cause of hazardous, distracted driving. Tnx, 73, CL, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply You will recall I recently senta letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:18079] Re: National Safety Council reply
by Chris Imlay 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Well, Marty, you have to?focus on?the operative term of the letter, which is at the end of the third?paragraph: "Until such time as compelling, peer-reviewed scientific research is presented that denotes significant risks associated with the use of amateur radios, two-way radios, or other communications devices, the NSC does not support legislative bans or prohibition on their use." ?That is a lot further than I expected them to go. Surely you can't expect the President and CEO of the NSC to not cover herself after giving an answer like that. The suggestion that amateur mobile operation should be confined to emergency communications during disasters is a suggestion for our own best practices document that they recommend. I think the letter is?a home run for us, frankly. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi(a)socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 2:45 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18077] Re:National Safety Council reply Hi, Joel. ? While I'm pleased to learn that NSC is not looking to promote laws prohibiting Amateur Radio mobile operation any time soon, I'm not sure that discouraging mobile operation other than in "disaster emergencies" is consistent with our - or at least my constituents'?- position on the use of Amateur equipment while driving.? Some people can multi-task well and others cannot.? A blanket policy along the lines suggested by Ms. Froetscher is, IMHO,?not a suitable substitute for the exercise of individual judgment and would be inapproriate. ? 73, ? Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:18 PM Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply ? You will recall I recently sent?a letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. ? Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. ? 73 Joel W5ZN ?

2 1

RE: [arrl-odv:18081] Re: RE: National Safety Council reply
by Joel Harrison 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

Marty, My statement in the last paragraph of my email may have caused some confusion. Rather than say "I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving" my intent was to say "I'm pleased to see NSC shares our concern on distracted driving". Sorry for the confusion. Joel _____ From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:49 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18081] Re: RE: National Safety Council reply Good enough. That's all I wanted to ascertain. Thanks, Marty ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> K1ZZ To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:41 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:18080] Re:RE: National Safety Council reply I agree with Chris's assessment. The NSC letter should be very helpful to us in heading off legislation. Our policy with regard to safety considerations in amateur mobile operation is: "ARRL encourages licensees to conduct Amateur communications from motor vehicles in a manner that does not detract from the safe and attentive operation of a motor vehicle at all times." We're not going to modify that policy as NSC suggests, nor I'm sure does she really expect us to. But we do need to be careful that we don't describe the NSC position as being entirely consistent with ours. Dave From: Chris Imlay [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 9:32 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18079] Re: National Safety Council reply Well, Marty, you have to focus on the operative term of the letter, which is at the end of the third paragraph: "Until such time as compelling, peer-reviewed scientific research is presented that denotes significant risks associated with the use of amateur radios, two-way radios, or other communications devices, the NSC does not support legislative bans or prohibition on their use." That is a lot further than I expected them to go. Surely you can't expect the President and CEO of the NSC to not cover herself after giving an answer like that. The suggestion that amateur mobile operation should be confined to emergency communications during disasters is a suggestion for our own best practices document that they recommend. I think the letter is a home run for us, frankly. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi(a)socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 2:45 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18077] Re:National Safety Council reply Hi, Joel. While I'm pleased to learn that NSC is not looking to promote laws prohibiting Amateur Radio mobile operation any time soon, I'm not sure that discouraging mobile operation other than in "disaster emergencies" is consistent with our - or at least my constituents' - position on the use of Amateur equipment while driving. Some people can multi-task well and others cannot. A blanket policy along the lines suggested by Ms. Froetscher is, IMHO, not a suitable substitute for the exercise of individual judgment and would be inapproriate. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: <mailto:w5zn@arrl.org> Joel Harrison To: <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:18 PM Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply You will recall I recently sent a letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use. Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0