Say WA? Evergreen State ping
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 06/30/2008 3:33:50 PM PDT by Stoat
|
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldnet.com ...
HeraldNet Cell-phone law tough enough Ask New Jersey
Readers may also be interested in this previous, related FR thread:
Cell-phone-driving ban takes effect July 1 in Washington (Washington State)
And if it doesn't, don't expect them to reverse it. This is a one-way road for them...
It is all about the money.
But what if your cell phone has blue tooth?
Then you're not an offender....for the time being :-)
The main reason they made it a primary offense is due to R-E-V-E-N-U-E. The MVC did studies showing the large amount of people talking on their cellies, especially out of staters (NJ being a major “drive through” state), and then calculated how much revenue they were losing by not having it as a primary offense.
OK, I have to step up and defend New Jersey.
um.
give me a minute.
gotta be something good about Jersey.
um.
kinda stumped here.
lemme get back to yall...
:D
The one in CA has teeth. CHP says they will start pulling people over at midnight tonight.
Great food.
No tax on clothing or shoes.
In Spokane the meth addicts prowl the “night” with impunity. I have been a victim several times and had thousands of dollars worth of tools and equipment stolen. Never to be recovered. My son’s have had their cars stolen 5 times. I want the police to stop this instead of waiting at every street corner to ticket someone who is going a little over the speed limit, talking on a phone, not wearing a seat belt or not wearing a bike helmet. But then, there is no profit for them in solving these crimes.
From the Everett Herald article:
Of the places with a statewide ban, only Washington state makes it a secondary offense, said Jonathan Adkins, a spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents highway safety offices nationwide.
In Washington, drivers face a $124 ticket for violating the ban. They can still use hands-free devices such as earpieces, wireless headsets and speakers. By comparison, California's fines are much lower at $20 for the first violation and $50 for subsequent violations. While adult drivers can talk on a hands-free device, drivers under 18 can't use a cell phone whether it's hand-held or hands-free.
There are no age restrictions in Washington.
Great food.
"sigh"
<<<gassing up the stoatmobile for a trip to the Garden State
(((snicker))
It isn't. I still see people yapping away with their heads tilted to the side and going 10mph or more under the speed limit or aggressively tailgating and weaving in and out of lanes.
There will be no $20 tickets...court fees and other surcharges raise the first ticket to more like $100.
I am sure there will be stories about the first tickets issued.
With headset and especially bluetooth cellphones readily available, there is very little reason to be caught holding your cell phone while driving.
People are just sneakier with it.
In NJ you still see, people holding their cell phones,talking and driving ALL THE TIME.
It doesn’t bother me.
Studies have confirmed that it’s not cell phones that cause accidents. It’s stupid. It’s just the LEFT wanting to control you.
Thanks very much for clarifying that point, which had seemed quite odd to me. Considering the administrative costs involved, I thought it would be a money-losing proposition to be pulling people over for a $20. fine.
I am sure there will be stories about the first tickets issued.
It will definitely be an entertaining circus to watch.
I saw a clip from one of the authors of Washington State’s Cell Phone Ban. She said it was just the first step. They will be looking into other measures.
Such measures include all cell phone conversation. They cite research that says that just talking on a cell phone interferes with the visual focus required to safely drive a car. This implies that all talking interferes with visual focus. I wonder if listening to the radio is included? That would eliminate Talk Radio from the automobile. Will they install microphone monitors that detect talk. Will these monitors be picked up by police radios?
Banning cell phones is the first step.
Agreed. If they were truly interested in reducing traffic accidents they would ban all cellphone use in vehicles, even handsfree use. Handsfree phone use can still be extremely distracting.
I know a lot of our more libertarian minded FReepers may not agree but I am all for laws like this, having seen several times people driving dangerously, stupidly or both due to having a damned PHONE attached to their empty friggin’ head. You say you have a right to talk on the phone and drive? Fine, but I reseved the righ to shove that phone up your nose after you rear-end me.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/index.htm here is the CA rundown...
of note, text messaging is still legal for adults, and no phone or texting under 18.
Great Britain is using super high-res highway cams that can spot drivers using cellphones or doing a variety of other activities:
Great Britain New super-cameras will mean no hiding place for drivers who smoke, eat or use a phone
Astonishing...particularly considering that most people I know that do texting typically use both hands on the phone and are looking down at the phone's screen while they do it.
CHP OFFICER: Sir, I noticed that you were driving without any hands on your steering wheel and looking down at your lap while your vehicle was travelling at 70 mph. Would you be so kind as to provide an explanation?
MOTORIST: Officer, I was engaged in a legal activity.
In New Jersey we are subjects, not citizens.
A similar ban in MA will EXEMPT cops, firefighters etc from the law. On duty or otherwise.
Yup, subjects, not citizens.
Here in MA, I still take other’s lives into my hands my driving, smoking and talking at the same time.
Of course, since the law in NJ never gets enforced, it's really a moot point.
Or this way
Aufmerksamkeit! Willkommen zur neuen Weltordnung. Hagel zu den prachtvollen Führern. Sie tun, was wir Ihnen erklären, wenn wir Ihnen erklären. Sie sind gute Bürger und berichten über alle Übeltäter. Wir sind Ihre Führer und wir wissen, was am besten ist.
But they're tyrants all the same. Meaning the Police Chiefs, Mayor's, and governors that think they still do not have enough {tools} control over our lives.
Whose money?
I guess you are not a supporter of your local police.
Well, at least you're not talking on a cell phone. Thanks for your objectivity.
I do, just turn on the speaker option and looks like you’re a madman yelling to no one. Other times, I hand hold the fone.
Great way to get people to give you the right of way.
They always let the crazy guy in front of them.
Well, they asked that of the legislator that introduced the bill....and they said that it was hard enough to get this passed, and that inserting that language would have killed it. I am sure it will appear down the line.
I’m in CA and I know that it will be far more distracting for me to struggle to turn on the speakerphone feature and answer my phone instead of just flipping it open and answering it.
In CA you can dial a phone or whatever else, just not hold it up to your face I guess.
I find my 4 young children in the backseat far more distracting than my phone anyway. FAR more.
Then I was told by a friend that when you use signals on a freeway that means you are requesting either right or left blocking. I checked the DMV manual and whaddaya know, he is correct! Now I don't use my signals anymore. /s
My wife, in preparation for this law bought a bluetooth headset and called me from it. Sounded like she was hollering in a tunnel.
She got another one and it won't pair with her phone.
I, on the other hand, cleverly went to Wally World, and got a little gadget that holds the cellphone on the end of a stick and fits in my cupholder. Put it on "speakerphone" and it works like a dream. Lo-tech wins every time.
Oooops. I guess I was wrong about the objectivity. /s
So traffic laws are all about income for the city? Or State? There’s a rationalization for you.
If it is about “revenue,” then why did it take so long for the legislation?
What so many Freepers are confessing here is that none of their conversations are important enough to just stop the car.
Well then just chop down the towers. You can’t use a cell phone without a tower.
Well the cops sure don't have to so why should I? BTW I use a headset. Cops have phone glued to ear.
Heck, it's hard enough to find and answer my cell phone when I'm home, much less driving. If I have to jam some gizzy into my ear at the same time, there goes the one eye and hand I was keeping on the road, not to mention unbuckling the seat belt so I can feel around the beer cans all over the floor and under the rear seat, and WTH would I going to do with my pancake syrup?
It's a good thing I have a sunroof, cause I hear they're ticketing for throwing things out the window.
I'm not so sure that the speed of any associated legislation would have been expedited if the underlying motive force was one of a desire for enhanced safety.....Leftist Leviathan Legislators being what they are. The California law which is due to be implemented at the same time as Washington's allows for text messaging, after all, which I believe most people would find FAR more distracting for far more people than talking on the phone is.
What so many Freepers are confessing here is that none of their conversations are important enough to just stop the car.
I'm hesitant to consider myself qualified to divine the motives of why people do things in terms of extremely broad brushstrokes, particularly in a matter such as this where a person's individual abilities, comfort zone and life scenarios play a central role in the success or failure of a safe mobile call, but speaking only for myself I never talk on the phone while driving anyway because
To be clear, I don't welcome laws such as this because it insinuates The State in a matter that, in my view, really should be up to a person's good judgement. A cell call can indeed be made or received safely given the satisfactory merging of numerous factors...among them:
Could a calm and serene former F-16 pilot who is driving on an arrow-straight and flat Montana road with no intersections for fifty miles on a beautiful sunny afternoon make a safe cell call of less than a minute's duration to his loving and devoted wife just to remind her that he loves her?
Sure, why not?
Should a particularly high-strung, emotionally unstable meth addict consider making a cell call to his Mob "Enforcer" to beg with him for an extra 24 hours to come up with the cash while driving in a major city's downtown rush hour during a thunderstorm?
Probably not.
In either case, if they cause an accident either person will still be legally liable if they end up having made the wrong decision.
Where do you do most of your driving, if I may ask. My animus toward cell phone use while driving stems from my daily experience in traffic. I have no ability to foresee an accident that might be caused by driver inattention so my dismay is the effect it has on traffic flow. It is not possible for an alert motorist not to observe the disruption—and concomitant hazards—caused by irregular speeds and slow starts typical of the phone impaired driver. Not to mention dangerous maneuvers like sudden lane changes (when they discover they have gone a little too far) and/or the quick u-turns as the remedy. If you live where traffic is lighter than the Los Angeles Westside area, then you’re lucky.
“I’m in CA and I know that it will be far more distracting for me to struggle to turn on the speakerphone feature and answer my phone instead of just flipping it open and answering it.”
“I find my 4 young children in the backseat far more distracting than my phone anyway. FAR more.”
How about not answering the phone while you are driving and already partially distracted by kids in the back?
“It’s just the LEFT wanting to control you.”
I disagree. Other comments talk about the money - and I disagree.
The people that want these laws I think are genuinely concerned for our safety (I’m not sure if this cell-phone law was a referendum or not). Just like the trans-fat laws, the menu/ingredient laws, the smoking laws, etc. - they are doing it for our own good.
That is even scarier I think than if it was just for control or for money. (Although those are two obvious outcomes).
Personally I get distracted while talking on the headset too. The kids in the backseat or my wife or a passenger next to me I typically ignore - which my wife points out to me numerous times! ;) But just the other day I was next to a gal that was going too slow and kept weaving across the line. Waving her hands and looking at her passenger while gabbing away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.