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.

[thatsnotnice]

If anyone in Ca. wants to talk to someone in their car they have to buy hands-fee devices, do they not?

Not that I know of. They’re trying to make it a law (maybe already done?).

I remember reading an article on a study (it was in a paper, don’t remember which one) in which they claimed that hands-free made no difference. They claimed that people talking on a cell phone (hands-free or otherwise) were distracted to the point that they were more likely to get in an accident than someone that was legally intoxicated.

I searched for an on-line version but couldn’t find it. Someone else might have read it… it came out about 4-5 months ago.

[freedomcrusader]

Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions

Donald A. Redelmeier, M.D., and Robert J. Tibshirani, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Background: Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case–crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.

Methods: We studied 699 drivers who had cellular telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle collisions resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each person's cellular-telephone calls on the day of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records.

Results: A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls were made during the 14-month study period. The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal characteristics such as age and driving experience; calls close to the time of the collision were particularly hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the collision; P<0.001); and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant). Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of an event.

Conclusions: The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility.

[freedomcrusader]

Forgot the source. That paper is from the February 13, 1997 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 336, Number 7, pages 453-458)

[kellynla]

It is unfortunate that laws have to be made for morons who lack common sense. Anyone with a just a fraction of common sense would know that if they absolutely feel that they must make a phone call that those people would pull over to the side of the road and make their call. Makes you wonder how important these people really think they are and what they did before we had cell phones. Meanwhile the rest of us will have to continue to drive defensively and avoid such idiots. The question that automobile insurance companies should be asking is. How many accidents did you CAUSE last year?

[MineralMan]

"Just more of our personal freedoms being stripped away."

So, you have a right to talk on your cell phone while you drive? I guess that woman who almost rammed my rear in stop and go traffic on the I-405 last week while she chatted on her cell phone was just exercizing her rights.

Hang up and drive!

[AbsoluteJustice]

BAN ALCOHOL PUT BACK IN PLACE PROHIBITION as alcohol is the leading outside factor of ALL traffic accident deaths...(/sacasm off)

[kellynla]

In CA, we do not have to use a hands free device to make a call in a vehicle. That is the whole point of the legislation is to force people to use hands free devices when making cell calls from their vehicle.

[AbsoluteJustice]

So I guess drinking coffee is off the table? Eating my healthy doughnut in the morning? How about shaving? Are we to make that illegal too? Ban kids as passengers? What about prohibition?

[AbsoluteJustice]

And yes BTW she was just exercising her rights to do such. NO IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION BUT not every inherent right is listed in the document that we assume is our rights. Government does not dictate every aspect of my life.

[MineralMan]

"So I guess drinking coffee is off the table? Eating my healthy doughnut in the morning? How about shaving? "

How about driving your car and not doing any of these things? Driving in heavy traffic does not lend itself to distractions if you want safety.

If you run up my backside while doing any of those things, I'm not going to be very happy with you. And my insurance company will point out in court that you were impaired in your concentration.

Shaving? Put the electic razor down and drive!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Speaking as a guy who makes a lot of cell calls while driving, I can unequivocally state that I am an accident waiting to happen unless I get a hands free system.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Its the buttons and the ability to continuously talk.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Do we pass a law that bans children in the car?

I'd vote for that - no more of those squabbling trips to the store, LOL.

[MineralMan]

"Speaking as a guy who makes a lot of cell calls while driving, I can unequivocally state that I am an accident waiting to happen unless I get a hands free system.


"

Me too. That's why I turn my cell phone _off_ when I get in the car to drive. Odd thing...callers are transferred to my voice mail when the phone is off, and I can call them back when it's safe to talk.

I've had several close calls with drivers talking on their cell phones. They drift out of their lanes, neglect to notice that traffic has slowed in front of them, and don't seem to notice that the lane they're changing into is occupied already.

I'm all for this law. Personal liberty ends when it endangers others. And cell phone use while driving endangers others.

Turn the danged phone off. There's a button on every cell phone that powers it down. You can check your voice mail when you park and make all the calls you want.

Hang up and drive!

[AbsoluteJustice]

I agree but noone should have the ability to infringe their accident prone issues upon me.

[MineralMan]

"I agree but noone should have the ability to infringe their accident prone issues upon me."

Silliness. Driving is one of the most highly regulated things in our society. Things like brake lights, turn signals, standards for headlights, etc., are all laws designed to protect others from those who might not want to use those things.

I don't care about your seat belt usage, to be frank, but I do care if you're distracted by your stupid cell phone call. There is no earthly reason you need to be talking on the cell phone while driving down the highway. None. There's an exit just down the road where you can pull off and return a call, or make one, if it's that important. Shoot, you can pull into any fast food restaurant and get a cup of coffee to go with your call.

There is no phone call important enough for you to risk _my_ life. I don't care what you do to risk yours, but when it comes to my life and the lives of my family, I care a heckuva lot.

Hang up and drive!

[Lefty-NiceGuy]

Hmm, was this study paid for by Cellular companies or the guys that make headsets.

How many of you guys know how to drive standard trasmition. Imagin driving that stick shift through windy hilly country roads. Now imagine doing it holding a phone in your hand. "hold on, I've got to shift ... and turn and opps Bang-Crash-Crumple-Crumple TREE."

This sounds like the arguement over speed limits. Germany has autobahns with no speed limits and less accidents than Americans. My boss can drive his Porshe at 220 Km/h here, but he's got to hook his phone into the car hands free when he drives (so says the law). Personally I think it'd be cooler if I could drive faster then 70mph in Texas, than it would to be able to talk on my phone as is.

[freedomcrusader]

...and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant).

The study wasn't paid for by folks who make hands-free, that's for sure.

[MineralMan]

I was listening to a call-in radio talk show about a year ago. Some idiot was haranguing the host from his cell phone while commuting to work. He was really into making his point. Suddenly, he said "Oh, Jesus!" About two seconds later there was a big noise and the phone went dead.

That talk show banned calls from cell phone users after that. I never did find out what happened to the idiot.

Hang up and drive!

[Consort]

Isn't driving still a privilege and not a right, or has it changed?