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.

[stumpy]

If that is the case, the Ca. Legislature better remove all the computer terminals from the police vehicles, and install hands free devices in all the emergency vehicles in the state to make it a level playing field for all.

If I can't use my phone as I purchased it, then the emergency vehicles should be equipped the same way.

[John Lenin]

Trying to drive with one hand and talk on the phone is NOT a good idea. I use my speakerphone to talk on the phone in the car. At least twice a week I am cut off or run off the road from some idiot talking on a cell phone. I now look for people talking on cell phones just so I can avoid being anywhere near their cars.

[AbsoluteJustice]

I agree with you on the more safe option to utilize hands free devices but there yet has to be ANY study to proove that it is safer. I believe it is and if so then so be it put it out there to the public, let them know the numbers and if they DECIDE to utilize the option then let them do it. But we do not need some government organazation TELLING us that we MUST use it so says the mighty government.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"I see no problem with people spending the $5-$15 to buy an earpiece and drive safely."

That is fine and dandy for you and for you ALONE to decide. I do NOT need another government agency telling me WHAT I must do and how I must live my life. We dont need more policing in our country . Cripes we already have smoking police.

[tru_degenerate]

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

Why are you for this law? It does not say you can't drive and talk on the phone. It says you have to use a handsfree devive while you drive and talk. The question is how many lives will this law actually save?

[freedomcrusader]

The question is how many lives will this law actually save?

And the answer to that question does not lie in any existing research. So, ultimately, a law was passed with unknown beneficial (or detrimental, for that matter) effects.

[thatsnotnice]

How many of you guys know how to drive standard trasmition.

I drove an ’89 Kenworth with an 18 speed road ranger. That was a delight after driving the ’70 Peterbilt that had a 5 over 4/2 – which is essentially a five speed transmission in front of a four speed transmission with a two speed splitter behind that.

If you ever get a chance to see one of those old rigs you’ll notice that the shift levers are usually real long and bent in weird directions. That’s so that (if you’re good) you can shift both transmissions simultaneously with one hand when needed. Otherwise, if you can’t figure it out you have to hook your left arm through the steering wheel and use both hands to shift.

At any rate, I spent many nights for years listening to Art Bell, jabbering on the CB, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee, etc, and never had any problem. (Except once when a couple of drunks going the wrong way on I-84 decided to drive under the cab.) But we didn’t have cell phones then so maybe that’s the difference. Ha.

[AbsoluteJustice]

So with the personal liberty ending logic when it endangers others I guess we would have to put prohibition back on alcohol because more people die from this in cars then any other reason. I know it does not say you cannot but to stipulate to me that I MUST use it with no research pointing to a negative effect on NOT using it is hogwash. In fact reports reflect quite the opposite; that there is really no difference statistically between using or not using. Cell phone accidents comprise less than 1% of the national number of accidents. This is a ridiculous waste of time furthering the cause on clamping down on the rest of us who use our phones responsibly.

[kellynla]

And how many times have you had to slow down suddenly in your 18 wheeler because someone was not paying attention to their driving? It is absolutely amazing that there are not a dramatically larger number of accidents on the freeways in CA than there are. I only have to get up on the 405 for ten minutes and I can count at least four potentional accidents because someone was either careless or not paying attention to their driving or both. Not to even consider the reckless driving that is prevalent on the freeways in CA. It is not the number of accidents eliminated but the number of accidents prevented.

[tru_degenerate]

'This is a ridiculous waste of time furthering the cause on clamping down on the rest of us who use our phones responsibly.'

I agree.

???????

[MineralMan]

"I only have to get up on the 405 for ten minutes and I can count at least four potentional accidents because someone was either careless or not paying attention to their driving or both. Not to even consider the reckless driving that is prevalent on the freeways in CA. It is not the number of accidents eliminated but the number of accidents prevented."

I hear that. I don't live in the L.A. area, but I drive there from further north a lot. I've stopped using the 101-405 combination completely. I simply will not drive on the 101 south of Oxnard, nor on the 405 between the 101 and LAX. Ever.

These days, I cut from the 101 over to the 126 in Ventura, then pick up the 5 to the 210, and take it down to the 605, then to the 405. Normally, I'm on my way to Costa Mesa, so the route works very nicely. In the morning, I'm going against the flow, and the same in the afternoon.

Since I make this drive in one day, the total driving time is about 9-10 hours. If I used the 101-405, it would be more like 14 hours, even though the distance is much shorter.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Excellent!!! :)

[thatsnotnice]

And how many times have you had to slow down suddenly in your 18 wheeler because someone was not paying attention to their driving?

Never, that I can remember. But I’m not the best person to ask because all of my driving occurred in or around Portland, Oregon and I purposely drove mostly between 10pm and about 9am just to avoid traffic.

Still, you usually don’t slow down suddenly. If you’re loaded you can’t, and if you aren’t loaded the brakes tend to lock and the truck and trailer tend to “chatter” and hop around, so you can’t exactly slow down suddenly without getting all squirrelly in the road and grinding flat spots in your tires.

I imagine most people just sit back and relax in CA though. No use in getting in too big a hurry because nobody’s going anywhere.

But you’re right – a lot of people don’t pay attention or are cruising along exceeding their ability to react or the ability of their vehicle to stop/move/slow down if something happens. One of my favorite sights was a guy in a new Mercedes sedan. It was one of the big ones. At the time Mercedes always bragged about their fancy new anti-lock braking system in their commercials.

Anyway, it was raining lightly and the Mercedes with its anti-lock brakes stopped just fine. Too bad the Dodge pickup behind him didn’t have them. Or the Chevy van behind him, or the Cutlass behind him, etc. Ha. It just goes to show you that even though it rains a great deal there they still want to rip around bumper to bumper and shoulder to shoulder like it’s Daytona.

[kellynla]

Well you are fortunate that you don't have to drive in CA because you would experience exactly what I am talking about. If not for the good, defensive drivers there would be an abundance of more accidents than there are. I see people everyday cutting in front of others and causing those behind them to brake suddenly causing the possibility and sometimes the reality of accidents. And the majority of the time those people are talking on a cell phone.

[spokeshave]

There was an article in Wall St Journal a couple of years ago about Road Warriers with three cell phones and a computer keyboard duck-taped to the stearing wheel.

The guy made 150K a year on the road selling parts and fittings.

My worst nightmare is again meeting the lady flossing her teeth doing 75 in the fast lane.

[Lefty-NiceGuy]

Respect, you probably drive better than most of the country. I'd guess that holding a phone to your ear constantly is notch harder than smoking, coffee, drinking, etc. maybe even talking on the CB since you can let go of it when you're just listening. Then again I'm just guessing. As far as I know they'll trust you in your ’89 Kenworth to drive with out seat belts too. I'd trust you way more that the average sunday driver to decide what's best regarding phones. If you were going to drive an talk all day (say with family and friends), would you consider getting a headset or something else so you could have your hands free?

[goldstategop]

Yup. Its all for the chirrun doncha know?? ;-)

[coton_lover]

Isn't that the whole point, if you force people to buy something doesn't that make the companies that make that product richer?

Gee, I wish I could make something and have the government say that it is best for public safety that the public HAS to buy my product!!

[Weimdog]

And still no budget from the nannies in Sacramento.