Yeah, I couldn't find anything beyond that either, thanks, and thanks to Brennan for checking as well.
It will be interesting I think to see whether or not the definition of PEDs that NTSB comes up with in the final recommendation is as broad as the accident narrative indicates it might be. The definitions in the state legislation are always the key to our approach to them; some are overbroad, some not. Clearly, the intention is to address cellular telephones, texting and e-mail while driving. However, the quote from the accident narrative sounds perhaps as though NTSB intends a more comprehensive definition, since the only mentioned exception is for GPS-type devices (which are certainly more distracting to try to program while driving than are many 3G and 4G mobile devices...).
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@ARRL.ORG
-----Original Message-----
From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org>
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org>
Sent: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 12:32 pm
Subject: [arrl-odv:20363] Re: Distracted driving
Chris, the actual recommendation is not yet available. In the synopsis of the report on the investigation of the Gray Summit accident (which involved texting and driver fatigue, not a cell phone call) there is no definition beyond this:
To the 50 states and the District of Columbia:
1. (1) Ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers; (2) use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration model of high visibility enforcement to support these bans; and (3) implement targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and enforcement, and to warn them of the dangers associated with the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving. (H-11-XX)
Dave
From: Chris Imlay [mailto:w3kd@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:11 PM
To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; arrl-odv
Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:20361] Distracted driving
Dave, you are obviously further along in researching this than I am at this point but do we know the specific NTSB definition of PEDs yet? If not, I will research it now (that I am finished with the BPL Recon Petition Draft). That could be a key issue here.
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@ARRL.ORG
-----Original Message-----
From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org>
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org>
Sent: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 9:35 am
Subject: [arrl-odv:20361] Distracted driving
Since the NTSB recommendation that all use of cellphones and other portable electronic devices by drivers be banned is the lead news story of the day, it’s worth a reminder that ARRL has been on top of this issue’s implications for Amateur Radio mobile operation for several years.
ARRL’s position is set out in the attached Mobile Amateur Radio Policy Statement, which includes suggested legislative language. In looking over the statement quickly this morning I didn’t see anything that requires a change, although I would encourage you all to review it with an eye to improving it in light of nearly three additional years of experience.
The correspondence with the National Safety Council that is cited in the following web story from September 15, 2009 may also be helpful:
Of course, in responding to the NTSB recommendation we must be careful not to minimize the horrific nature of the accidents cited in their Fact Sheet (also attached). But the fact is that none of them involved Amateur Radio or other two-way radio operation, and one of the studies cited therein (the Australian study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine) had already been debunked prior to the NTSB release (see http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/us-studies-cellphone-crash-idUSTRE7BB1B720111212
<<MobileAmateurRadioPolicyStatement.pdf>> <<PED_Ban_Fact_Sheet.pdf>>