Car phone bill slips through Assembly New law would require hands-free devices

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 06/02/03 | Lynda Gledhill

[AbsoluteJustice]

Sacramento -- Legislation requiring motorists to use hands-free devices while making cell phone calls beginning Jan. 1, 2005, cleared a huge hurdle Thursday, squeaking out of the Assembly with no votes to spare.

Boosted by a California Highway Patrol study that found cell-phone use a leading cause of accidents involving distracted drivers, the bill passed 41-26 after languishing for more than two years without reaching a floor vote.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Just more of our personal freedoms being stripped away.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Well, I dont recall the Constitution guaranteeing the right to drive and talk on the phone at the same time. I encourage laws that make sense, and this law makes sense. Hands-free devices are much safer, and come with all cell phones now.

I was cut off in traffic the other day by an oblivious woman talking on a cell phone. She was holding it up on her shoulder. As I passed her I yelled, "I bet you would drive a lot better if that phone was shoved up your a$$!"

[AbsoluteJustice]

There are a lot of things that are not guarunteed by the constitution that are allowed and are inherent rights. The document I have begun to relize is not a restrcting document to any right not proclaimed within it. So to announce that it is not in the constitution so therefore is not a right is nonsense.

[Dr Warmoose]

I am convinced that this "Hands Free" cellphone law is designed to kill more people so only limosine liberals can make phone calls while on the road.

As a motorcyclist, life and death is often separated by noticing what is going on in different vehicles. A person on a cell phone is distracted and is very much unlikely to notice things around them. For my own safety I need to know that this menace is in proximity. As it has been for some time, I can tell when someone is on the phone because either their head is cocked over unnaturally to one side, or something as obvious as their hand stuck to the side of their head.

What in effect the legislators are saying is that it is only the act of placing one's hand along-side their head is what causes the greatly diminished driving abilities. So for a fraction of time where someone is scratching their ear, or adjusting their glasses, that person is more dangerous than the hands-free cell phone user.

I know why they are making it a crime to move one's hand up near the skull, because if they claimed that talking to another person is distracting, then it would be an argument against car-pooling. At least those who operate the busses know that talking to the driver is a bad idea and that is why they prohibit it.

So for the sake of justifying HOV lanes, they are willfully jeopardizing the lives of others by criminalizing the act of holding an object against one's ear - thus removing a clear sign that the driver is impaired and dangerous. Yet another victimless crime that makes the city revenue while creating even a greater hazard to life and limb.

[Dr Warmoose]

...So to announce that it is not in the constitution so therefore is not a right is nonsense.

Some people live by the credo that Government is Perfect and Omniscient hence, they think in authoritative terms like That which is not expressedly permitted is prohibited.

[thatsnotnice]

I encourage laws that make sense, and this law makes sense. Hands-free devices are much safer, and come with all cell phones now.

Everything I’ve read suggests that hands-free devices are no safer.

The authors suggest that banning hand-held devices, but permitting hands-free devices in motor vehicles is not likely to significantly reduce driver distractions associated with cell phone conversations.
[http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/16/cell.phone.driving/]

Or:
http://www.nsc.org/news/nr012703.htm

[Lefty-NiceGuy]

What AbsoluteJustice is talking about is the "right to be left alone". My gut feeling is that I have a right to do what ever as long as it doesn't affect other people. "My right to swing my fist around ends at your nose."

I don't mind you talking on the teli, in your car UNLESS you drive like an A$$ doing it. I don't mind you smoking dope as long as you don't cause me any problems. I don't mind an 18 year old adult drinking AS LONG as he doesn't drive.

We've got guys here in FreepLand that support Texas's right to tell homosexuals what they can do in thier bedroom. If those same people are saying they have a constitutional right to talk on a hand held phone in the car, they'd be very inconsistent. I see this as sort of a Libertarian vs. both parties issue.

[AbsoluteJustice]

EXACTLY!!! I also wonder what is next? Women not allowed to put on make-up? Not allowed to have that coffee? Doughnut? How about that electric shaver?

[tahiti]

"Well, I dont recall the Constitution guaranteeing the right to drive and talk on the phone at the same time"

Let me refresh your memory.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."

You and I and all of the U.S. citizens have so many rights, retained by the people, to try list and/or mention them would be impossible.

James Madison new that and that is why this amendment was enacted over 227 years ago.

"I'll bet you would be a better citizen if you were familiar and profficent with the application and meaning of the Bill of Rights."

[templar]

I've been wondering what makes cell phones more dangerous than CB radios and the other hand held radios of various sorts. They've been around for decades and their use has not been outlawed. Is it the nature of the device or the nature of it's common useage? If it's the useage, I don't see how hands free devices are less distracting.

[AbsoluteJustice]

I'll tell you what it is.....It is the road rage generation that states if you don't hurry up and get out of my way I will blow up and crack your head with a tire iron......This is what our society has come to. We have a society that criticizes those that dirve slowly and takes their frustrations attributing it to the cell phone useage.

[ladylib]

What about not allowed to smoke?

[templar]

....It is the road rage generation that states if you don't hurry up and get out of my way I will blow up and crack your head with a tire iron.....

Can you immagine what this country will be like if the economy really does go south (like during the Great Depression)? We can't even seem to deal with traffic problems, real hardships could put US over the edge, IMO.

[Puppage]

prohibiting any driver from using a cell phone without a hands-free device.

Yep, but NOTHING about looking down TO DIAL THE PHONE!

I encourage laws that make sense, and this law makes sense.

Says who..YOU? What about the AAA study that showed 10 other "distractions" that cause MORE accidents, hmm? Chief among them children in the backseat that cry/complain, etc.

Do we pass a law that bans children in the car? If not, WHY? If it'll save lives...

I was cut off in traffic the other day by an oblivious woman talking on a cell phone. She was holding it up on her shoulder

Oh, I get it...so because THIS person can't drive & talk at the same time EVERYONE should be banned from doing so?

[Puppage]

I don't see how hands free devices are less distracting.

I agree.And, here's something to ponder...are they banning the PHONE, or are they banning the DISTRACTION?

If they're banning the distraction then they had better stop pretty women from walking the streets because THAT'S a distraction to most men.

[tru_degenerate]

I can think of a lot of distractions in a car while driving.

1. kids
2. the radio
3. the a/c - heater
4. power windows

Has a study been done to see how any of these may cause accidents?

The law makes no sense because it did not distinguish how many of the people in the accidents were using hands-free-devices already.

[freedomcrusader]

Hands-free devices are much safer, and come with all cell phones now.

Bull! The only stuidy I've seen is tyhe one from the New England Journal of Medicine, which found a HIGHER rate of accidents among hands-free users, although it wasn't a statistically significant difference.

Bottom line: not proven that hands-free are safer and the may be more dangerous.

If you're serious about reducing accidents to cell phones, and you're serious about the science, hands-free have to go as well.

Unless you have another study to counter mine. Then let the scientific debate begin.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Just frompersonal experience- whenever I see someone driving like an idiot, too slow, drifting into the next lane... they are usually holding a phone to their ear.

I am guilty of the same thing. For some reason, holding a phone to my head is distracting, I cant explain why. I have since purchased a new phone and use the headset that came with it, and it is much better to drive and talk using the headset.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Ooooooo how I agree with you, this generation does not know how to truely deal with stress without their daily dose of prozac or ritalin. Funny thing is I am a part of this generation....leg up I have is former Marine so I will be juuuuuust fine :)

[coton_lover]

I think you all have it wrong. If anyone in Ca. wants to talk to someone in their car they have to buy hands-fee devices, do they not?

I've heard about this from a radio talk show. It is just a ploy from companies wanting to sell their hands-free devices and giving kick-backs to the assemblymen for making the Ca. people buy them. (Sounds a bit like the car insurance industry.)