Forum Moderators: open
Oh, thank you California Lawmakers! Its about time this came down the pipeline and goes into effect without a grace period! There are two (02) new laws dealing with the use of wireless telephones while driving which go into effect 2008 July 01, Tuesday here in California. These new laws apply to everyone driving within the State of California...
The first prohibits all drivers from using a handheld wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle, (Vehicle Code (VC) §23123). Motorists 18 and over may use a "hands-free device." Drivers under the age of 18 may NOT use a wireless telephone or hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle (VC §23124).
I will feel "just a little bit safer" knowing that these laws are going into effect. I wonder how much road rage is caused by cell phone users? I know I've been cut off, slowed down, ignored, etc. by those driving and chatting on their cell phones. I don't do it so I can talk trash right now. I'll pull over if I have to use the phone for an extended period. If not, I just won't use it. Its not worth the risk. I'm an excellent driver but I'll admit that talking on the cell phone interferes with my driving focus, that is not good, especially here in Southern California.
So, let it be proven that you caused an accident while on your cell phone. The penalties and after effects are pretty severe these days. And, if you are under 18 and did that, you're in big trouble! So, save the damn chatting for those times when you are not behind the wheel of a 3,000 pound automobile and placing those around you at risk. I'm serious...
Maybe this will spur an idea for a device that restricts access on your phone when "it" is moving at a certain speed. :)
<tounge in cheek>
The vast majority of vehicle accidents are caused by people who are not using a mobile phone. Therefore using the phone while driving should be encouraged.
Most accidents (over 70%) are caused by sober drivers, so they are the main problem not the drinkers.
</tounge in cheek>
Demaestro has a point. Accidents are caused by bad driving, everything else is just a symptom of the unnecessary risk taking and lack of good judgement that causes the accidents. So in my view specific laws are not necessary. Otherwise we would need new laws every time some non-driving legislator thought up a new problem, and it would be unmanageable.
Most accidents are caused by young drivers who haven't learnt their limitations so the most logical new law would be to raise the age at which you are allowed to drive to 25 or even 30.
If you have a hands-free setup, how is that conversation going to impair your driving any more than talking to a passenger would? They might as well outlaw talking to passengers.
Yes, conversations while driving can get dangerous - even more so when the discussion gets emotional. Texting while driving is also dangerous to the driver and those around him/her. But it seems unlikely that talking on the cell is equivalent to having 0.08 BAC.
Yes, hand-held devices should be outlawed. Two hands should be devoted to driving. This law is a step in the right direction.
So in my view specific laws are not necessary.
So DUI would be OK as long as the drunk driver avoids accidents at which time he or she could be done for reckless driving?
I think you may be missing the point here. Rules are necessary for driving. That is why we are all told to drive on the same side of the road and why we give way at junctions and stop at red lights.
Can I drive on the wrong side of the road as long as I avoid an accident? Can I ignore red lights when I think it's safe to do so? Can I drive as fast as I deem it to be safe?
I am not being facetious. My point is that certain things have to be regulated to make the roads safer for us all. If something is repeatedly being seen to be a cause of problems then we need to highlight it and regulate it. Using mobile phones has clearly been identified as a being problem as I noted in my earlier example.
Rules are necessary for driving of course. Making the comparison to drunk driving, running red lights, and using the wrong side of the road is a stretch when comparing someone using their phone. It also doesn't explain why you support a law for phones but you aren't calling for similar laws banning eating & drinking a coffee or operating your radio.
Don't you find drive through restaurants an invitation to eat while driving? Why aren't you similarly outraged? You can't tell me that you think it is unsafe to have a phone in your hand but it is ok to have a scolding hot coffee or a burger dripping sauce.
Is it that you think you are able to do these things and drive? Well I think I can use my phone and drive... My prediction we see this on those Stupid Laws sites and books in about 15 years... Along with the one that if you let your wife drive you must walk in front of the vehicle with a red light as a warning... cause studies show that it is dangerous to let a women drive ;p?!?!?
90% of studies can be made to say anything you want... 50% of the time.
"So, what are ya in for pal?"
"I got a freakin warrant for 50+ unpaid misdemeanor cell phone fines. They hit me with the 3 Strikes rule and here I sit..."
Welcome to California!
Why aren't you similarly outraged?
Outraged? Did I appear to be outraged?
You can't tell me that you think it is unsafe to have a phone in your hand but it is ok to have a scolding hot coffee or a burger dripping sauce.
No I can't and I did not tell you that. Did I?
Sometimes I can get a wee bit annoyed (not quite outraged) when people imply that I have said something that I did not.
I am not really outraged about anything at the moment and I am not even beginning to lose the plot. Actually I cannot even get mildly excited about the driving laws in California. All I am doing is participating in the thread and giving you my opinions, which are backed up by lots of evidence worldwide.
Like DUI using a phone while driving has been proven to be dangerous so why not stop it?
Haha, you always appear to be outraged. :)
The number of people killed on British roads last year fell to the lowest level since records began, transport department figures show.Driver attitudes
The drop in deaths was also welcomed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, who attributed it to local authority road safety programs, police, "government-led strategies" and technological advances in vehicles.
Motoring group the RAC Foundation warned of complacency in the wake of fewer deaths and injuries.
Deputy director Sheila Rainger said there was still a need for improving driver attitudes, high-profile enforcement by traffic police; and improving safety at known accident hotspots.
And AA president Edmund King said short-term improvements such as enforcing seatbelt, mobile phone and drink-drive laws would help reduce deaths even further.
Note that this is not the government who are championing this. It's the Automobile Association, which works for the interests of drivers here in the UK.
I distinctly remember that there was quite a large and vocal opposition to making the wearing of seat belts compulsory here in the UK. Since then it is reckoned that more than 50,000 lives have been saved as a result.
Who knows best?
Haha, you always appear to be outraged.
Not on this occasion surely? ;)
Actually I am hitting on a bit so I think I am entitled to be a wee bit "crabbit" (as we say here in Scotland) at times.
Crabbit Scot. dialect [adj] ill-tempered, grumpy, curt, disagreeable, in a bad mood (esp. in the morning).
[n] (see crab) one who by their nature or temperament conveys an aura of irritability
