Hang up phone or be fined? (CA)

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."

You sound like one of the democratic legistlators from California, or better yet Hillary, who said:

Got hyperbole? Strawment arguments don't cut it.

Do I need to give you a primer on whatit means to be in a Representative Republic and how laws are made?

I have been personally run out of my lane at least 10 times and was almost hit in a crosswalk when I had the green and every single time it was from someone driving while on a cell phone.

Scientific studies have shown the human brain can't properly multi-task when using a phone and that using a phone is the same as driving drunk.

Or do you think drunk driving laws are also a sign of a "Nanny State?"

As far as what you do or don't do, I clearly said "I assume" since you are defending such dangerous behavior. I also never use the phone when driving and I appreciate the fact you also show proper respect. Too bad most people don't.

Do I need to give you a primer on whatit means to be in a Representative Republic and how laws are made?

I understand that idiots can make all sorts of laws, but the question is should we? When is freedom more important than safety? 99.9999999% of the time.

I have been personally run out of my lane at least 10 times and was almost hit in a crosswalk when I had the green and every single time it was from someone driving while on a cell phone.

Freedom means individual responsibility. If someone harms you with a car whether they are talking on a cell phone or putting in a CD, they should be held responsible. I commute 135 miles a day in heavy traffic, and cell phone users are the least of my concerns because they are easily identifiable and predictable. The ones that have almost killed me are people who change lanes in four or five lane wide highways and do not look before they do it.

Scientific studies have shown the human brain can't properly multi-task when using a phone and that using a phone is the same as driving drunk.

These days scientific studies say whatever the funder wants them to say. The studies I have seen say putting in a CD is more dangerous than talking on a cell phone because of the amount of time you are not looking ahead of you. If what you say is true, cops should have to pull over before they talk on their radios.

Or do you think drunk driving laws are also a sign of a "Nanny State?"

The .08 laws certainly are since they were passed by junk science and MADD and actually make the roads less safe because they create a larger pool of offenders that have to be dealt with when the actual ones that do the killing are mostly .13 and above.

Out where I live bicyclists ride our back roads which are curvy and hilly and I have had to lock up my brakes more than once coming over a hill at 50 and seeing then right in front of me doing 20. Does that mean biking shoold be outlawed?

You either believe in freedom and personal responsibility or you do not. If someone talking on a cell phone kills someone and goes to jail for manslaughter, that sends more of a message than seat belt laws II, which trivializes the law and makes people respect it even less than they do now.

Okay. I'll concede that I understand how you feel; I see the same things you see; people drifting out of their lanes, essentially traveling along in their own little world with just them and their phone. But, rather than castigate EVERYONE who uses a cellphone behind the wheel, let's be a bit more in-depth with our analysis fo the real problem.

As I see it; it's all about skill and personal capabilities.

Look. That State chants the mantra "Driving is not a right; it's a privilege". It is the State that erects itself as THE licensing authority. So, then, it seems to me that; if the level of skill exhibited among the driving masses leaves something to be desired -- people are licensed that can't drive and talk on the phone at the same time -- the the licensing authority has the obligation to raise the bar.

You are exactly right that people are literally getting killed out there, but it's not the phones that are the real problem; it's the level at which the State has deemed that a person may be licensed to drive. I frankly doubt that someone who has trouble driving while talking on the phone would have any less trouble driving while talking to a passenger, changing a CD, or drinking a soda.

I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all answer in the form of anti-_______ (fill in the blank with the 'distraction' of your choice) legislation. Rather, I firmly believe that answer lies in a one-size-fits-all raising of the bar for a license; perhaps even with the introduction of a tiered licensing structure such that those demonstrating greater skill are granted greater privilege.

Perhaps the existing license should be defined as a 'Basic' license that allows mobility within defined restrictions. For example, a Basic licensee may have unlimited surface street access but may not travel upon any highway, except in the rightmost lane, and may not pass slower traffic.

Add to the existing minimal testing requirements successful completion of a one-day closed-circuit driving course and you qualify for an 'Extended' license that grants full access privileges to all lanes. Courses could be required to be repeated at ten-year intervals to maintain proficiency. Anyone not passing the road course would still be able to get a 'Basic' license as long as they could pass the minimum requirements for it. 'Extended' licensees would receive a tag that they would be required to display in a corner of the windshield. This tag could be made of that vinyl that adheres to glass without any adhesive (if you've ever been to a 'Jiffy Lube', you've seen it) so it would be easily transferable from vehicle to vehicle. Countrfeit of such a tag would be a $50,000 fine and ten years in the slammer. Unauthorized usage of an 'Extended' tag would be a 2-point violation resulting in a $996 fine and 40 hours of public service (usually picking up garbage along the shoulder of the highway).

In this kind of a situation, 'Extended' licensees could be required to meet a higher bar on an ongoing basis or lose their 'Extended' license. For example, get a DUI as an 'Extended' licensee and you're busted down to 'Basic' license level FOR LIFE. Insurance companies could get in on the act and give premium breaks for 'Extended' license holders. Whatever the case, the upshot would be that the 'Extended' license would be recognized as a high-value license, and those in posession of one would drive far more carefully knowing that they had something valuable to lose if they were careless or inattentive.

All of the foregoing is just an example of what could be done, if there really was the will to fix the problem and not just get political points by having one's name on a piece of legislation addressing, but not really fixing, a social peeve.

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.