Posted on 08/26/2006 11:13:18 AM PDT by radar101
Motorists would be banned from using handheld cell phones - a problem blamed for thousands of vehicle crashes and fatalities - under a bill expected to be approved by the Legislature next week. Modeled after a New York City law, Senate Bill 1613 would fine drivers using handheld cell phones $20 for the first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses beginning Jan. 1, 2008.
It would not apply to drivers using hands-free models and would exempt motorists using handheld cell phones in emergencies. And the legislation would remain in effect only until July 1, 2011, unless renewed.
"Cell phones are the No. 1 cause of distracted-driving accidents in California," said Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, who authored the bill as well as five previous versions.
"Accidents by drivers using handheld phones outnumber those driving hands-free by a ratio of 25 to 1," he said. "The difference between hands-free and handheld is life and death."
If SB 1613 is approved during the last week of the legislative session, it would go to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for consideration.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Darrel Ng said Friday that the Governor's Office "is actively working with the author on the bill."
In working on the bill for the past six years, Simitian has managed to eliminate most of the opposition to the measure. The exception is Sprint Nextel, which issued a statement saying the bill "fails to address the real public issue of inattentive driving."
(Excerpt) Read more at dailynews.com ...
I can't count the number of times I have seen distracted drivers swerving or braking suddenly because they were busy talking, swatting or otherwise dealing with their passengers/kids. Maybe we should ban passengers and or/require that kids be placed in separate compartments? LOL
you're right, microphones need to be placed inside the car passenger compartment and any voices sensed, used to trigger a flashing light to alert police to lock the driver up. Radios and conversations with passengers verboten!
IMHO, sufficient legislation/regulation exists as 'driving under the influence' or 'reckless behavior' to provide law enforcement sufficient authority to arrest and fine an inattentive motorist.
It has also been my experience that some people, myself included, are distracted by cell phones and/or conversations while driving, however, I do know some women who may have their attention diminished slightly, but still are able to carry on several conversations at once, while driving, without any noticable difference in their driving skills. (Note I didn't quantify what those driving skills might be without cell phones)
Granted, they are female drivers. and those skills obviously don't match up to their male counterparts, but I do give them credit for being able to gab and drive concurrently.
It isnt that flashing lights need to be attached anywhere and yes there are laws that would work. The problem is that when these inattentive people using these cellphones crash into others there isnt a cop around.
The perfect answer would be for everyone to sense the dangers and pull over for their conversations, then no new laws would benecessary. The problem is that the person doing the talking believes he or she is perfectly capable of driving and talking. Right Up until the time they
realise that you are stopped and they are 5 feet from driving your neck into the back seat.
It will cost at least $50 per citation to process. The state will lose money on first offenders.
Personally, I think kids (screaming babies, fighting siblings, etc) should be banned from cars because they are my biggest distraction.
50 cents to process perhaps, the rest is pure profit merely justifying a noncompetitive socialist environment.
Honestly, that is even more dangerous than cell phones for some of us. ;)
Can they not just STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!
But your analogy of a pilot at 35,000 feet talking is not accurate. The higher the altitude, the better. Further, when they're actually flying the aircraft, they're on the horn with air traffic controllers. On long flights, 90+% of flight time is auto-pilot.
BTW, it's usually very easy to spot a cell phone user. Just stay away from them.
The headline here is about the trial of a local woman who broadsided another vehicle. killing the driver. The woman was talking on a cell phone.
She was convicted of negligent man slaughter fined and sentenced to 200 hours community service..... the maximum allowed by Tennessee law.
"Ask yourself how you would feel about your airline pilot on any commercial flight, talking away on a cellphone while transporting you from point A to point B at about 35,000 feet? You want him talking, or do you want him flying?"
As a pilot I say your full of s**t!!!!
We don't use cell phones but are talking on the radio constantly, if we refused we would lose our licences.
Such misguided people having fooled themselves want to be seen using a cellphone to make others think they are important!They should pay higher insurance rates as well.
I've got a better idea - just hold drivers responsible COMPLETELY When they are at fault in an accident. A cell phone to the ear can be one of many distractions that drivers face that they create themselves.
What about women putting on make-up while driving?
I guess we should also ban children in the vehicle - as they can be a much larger distraction that cell phones.
What about outlawing mosquitoes and stinging insects? They have been the cause of many accidents because of their distracting nature.
Lets go ahead and outlaw stupidity while we are at it - since laws are so effective...
1.http://www.statefarm.com/learning/be_safe/road/learning_besafe_ontheroad_cell.asp
Cell phone users were four to five times more likely to have crashes than non-users.
Cell phone units that allow the hands to be free offer no safety advantage over hand-held units.
2. As a former State Officer dealing with anywhere from one to three crashes a day:
a. In 2000, the State included these questions on the Collision Reporting Form..
1. Was there a cell phone in the car?
2. Was the Cell phone in use?
(Better not lie on this one. Plaintiff's attorneys subpoena your phone records--which have a time-stamp)
3. The issue becomes one of "Greater Negligence", both criminally and civilly.
If you kill someone due to your total attention being on a phone conversation, that puts you somewhere between manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.
If your car was broadsided by someone pulling out, and usually you would not be at fault, the issue now is "Were you so engaged that you missed a chance to avoid a collision?" Attorneys like to make "Contributorily negligent".
" If you're talking on the telephone, you aren't paying attention to your driving."
That's fine. Just make sure that you don't eat in your car, drink in your car, argue with kids in a car, get to engrossed in a radio or CD in a car, etc...
Some folks just have an irrational hatred of those who use cell phones, and want to lump everyone; responsible or not, into one catagory.
"So....help me Nanny."
Lots of people on FR love the nanny-state and wouldn't part with it for anything.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator and Historian (A.D. c.56 - c. 115)
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.