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@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@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