I just heard on the news that a law banning drivers under the age of 18 from using cell phones while driving may be passed in CA. This bothers me because it targets teens who have absolutely no money to fight the law, and gives cause for the police to randomly pull teens over and taunt them about their driving. As a responsible teen driver myself, I understand that I don't have that much experience. However, cell phones distract everybody, not just teens. In fact, when I have a cell phone in my car, I pull over to answer it more often than not. You will not see a mom with 3 kids in the back seat rushing to a soccer game ever pull over to answer a cell phone.

It just irks me because the first offense is a $50 ticket and a point on the DL which is absolutely ridiculous. Consider that I know people who've gone 15-20MPH over and go a $90 ticket with no points. I think it's ridiculous and will be fighting it all the way to my death. The ban should be on all drivers, not just teens.

What are your opinions?

Totally agree with you. Isn't that profiling - a problem with all folks but only choosing a select group of people to enforce it on?

You contradict yourself - you agree that there should be a ban, then say you will fight it because it targets teens?

If you want to fight - fight for the law to be extended to all drivers. Cellphone-using drivers are a menace to everyone on the road, and inexperienced cellphone-using teens are at higher risk to themselves and others because of their short time on the road.

I was sitting at a red light on the way home from work 2 years ago, and was clobbered from behind at 40mph by some 17-year-old airhead talking to her boyfriend on her cellphone. She was so stupid, she apologized by telling everyone, including her parents and the cops, that she was distracted by her cellphone conversation!

My own 18-year-old daughter, an excellent driver who swore she would never speak on her cell phone while driving (a family guideline) had her only accident while reaching for her ringing phone.

Be thankful that this law has some teeth - it may save your life! In NJ, handheld cellphone use is against the law but can only be enforced if you are pulled over for another violation. It is so useless, you can easily count 20% - 40% of all drivers using handheld phones during rush hour.

This is not about profiling - it is about removing this danger from the roads, reducing insurance costs and saving lives.

:mad:

personally, i think there should be some type of electronic device installed in cars that disable cell phones while the motor is running. i've lost count of the number of times i was almost clipped by some knucklehead gabbing away.

Dave,

I believe your suggestion is more of a knee-jerk reaction.

Pairallel,

I don't think he did contradict himself. He said he would fight the law. The law is picking out a certain group of people. What if the law said that only (insert any ethnic group here) can be ticketed b/c they have been shown to be the highest risk. He never said he was against what the law forid, only who it forbid from doing it. He obviously doesn't think it's fair. I agree.

This problem covers pretty much the entire population. When you start picking on certain groups, hatred builds. No one wins then. People will, for the most part, follow laws if they think they are fair.

I have not had anyone hit me yet, but I have sat thru my green light while someone ran thru their red light. They were talking to someone very important or at least more important than the life of me & my wife.

I disagree. The law is correct, but incomplete. What do you accomplish by fighting to overturn it? Teenagers (by far the most dangerous drivers on the road) will once again get to raise their risk level without penalty.

My position is that it needs to be extended, not overturned. It should apply to everyone, but in the meantime, we are all better off if it at least applies to the most dangerous group while we fight to include the rest of the life-endangering morons...

Hmmmm....think this is a hot button for me?

:mad:

Laws rarely get changed to include more. If I fight for it to extend to everyone, basically it's me against the world. It would be easier to just get this law out of the books and have it reintroduced to include everyone.

Also people forget that studies show the radio is as big a distraction as the cell phone, if not even more so. Remember that many teens like music, including myself. Shall I then introduce a law to forbid installing any sort of musical reproduction equipment in cars?

I will fight this law to show that teens are actually smarter than they appear. Politicians need to remember that they're targeting the exact group that will have power to vote in just a few short years, even months.

What would be the guidelines to pull someone over? I can be 19 or even older, and still look 16-18 years old. So what, police are just going to randomly pull people over then? Instead of fighting rampant crime in the city, which has hit a record homicide rate two years in a row? I don't think so.

Originally posted by benjamming
Dave,

I believe your suggestion is more of a knee-jerk reaction.



i dont think so.

i would like to know what exactly is so all important that a phone conversation must take place while behind the wheel?

all these distrated gabbers cant possibly have emergencies they are attending to. cant all those calls wait till they are home or getting out of the car at the mall or whatever their destination was?

Originally posted by Dave
i dont think so.

i would like to know what exactly is so all important that a phone conversation must take place while behind the wheel?

all these distrated gabbers cant possibly have emergencies they are attending to. cant all those calls wait till they are home or getting out of the car at the mall or whatever their destination was?

The more I look at it, the more this law doesn't make sense, for teens or for anyone else.

(Note that some of the following may not refer only to teens. Answering the question quoted above, because "gabbers" don't only have to be teens.)

If your business was being robbed, or your car being stolen, or your mom was in the hospital, I think you'd want to know and know NOW. Wait til they got to their destination? Our country is huge and we are a nation of roadtrippers. What if my "destination" is not arriving for another 300 miles?

If someone almost hit you, report them for reckless driving on your cell phone. Don't just automatically assume that everybody is a bad driver. I've driven in the city while GETTING DIRECTIONS over the phone, and I drive a manual. That was in the rain and there was no time in which I nearly hit another car or ran a light/stop sign. I even had enough brain power left to notice distinct landmarks that I had passed earlier in the day. There has got to be someone out there who can drive an auto and get directions at the same time.

I bet that you guys didn't know that if you call 77 on your cell phone you'd reach your local police dispatcher. Real handy for those times on a dark highway where someone tries to pull you over and you want to make sure if it's a real police car or a convicted rapist. With a ban on using cell phones on the road, it would be another ticket on your tab if it was a real police officer.

How about Congressional leaders being called to an emergency meeting? They drive just like the rest of us, and they still receive tickets for speeding, even to an emergency session. How about ER surgeons who need to get to the hospital ASAP, but can also give critical life saving directions on the way there? I don't think you'd want to die because the surgeon didn't want a $50 ticket, yes?

Originally posted by BenjiBoy650

If your business was being robbed, or your car being stolen, or your mom was in the hospital, I think you'd want to know and know NOW. Wait til they got to their destination? Our country is huge and we are a nation of roadtrippers. What if my "destination" is not arriving for another 300 miles?

If someone almost hit you, report them for reckless driving on your cell phone. Don't just automatically assume that everybody is a bad driver. I've driven in the city while GETTING DIRECTIONS over the phone, and I drive a manual. That was in the rain and there was no time in which I nearly hit another car or ran a light/stop sign. I even had enough brain power left to notice distinct landmarks that I had passed earlier in the day. There has got to be someone out there who can drive an auto and get directions at the same time.

I bet that you guys didn't know that if you call 77 on your cell phone you'd reach your local police dispatcher. Real handy for those times on a dark highway where someone tries to pull you over and you want to make sure if it's a real police car or a convicted rapist. With a ban on using cell phones on the road, it would be another ticket on your tab if it was a real police officer.

How about Congressional leaders being called to an emergency meeting? They drive just like the rest of us, and they still receive tickets for speeding, even to an emergency session. How about ER surgeons who need to get to the hospital ASAP, but can also give critical life saving directions on the way there? I don't think you'd want to die because the surgeon didn't want a $50 ticket, yes?

first off, people driving while getting directions on the phone is the stuff of nightmares. PULL OVER AND WRITE IT DOWN! cant remember what you wrote? PULL OVER AND RE-READ IT!
you dont know if its a cop behind you? keep going till you get to a well lit, populated area. it may require a trip to traffic court to explain it, but it is what self defense specialists and law enforcement personnel recommend.
the majority of ERs dont have ER surgeons. they have surgeons in house or on call which means they get paged. they arent the only ones that can give life saving directions either.
congressional leaders get drivers and cars.
as far as the robbing and stealing, what difference is it going to make knowing now or 15 minutes or even 3 hours from now? its over and done with.
if mom was in the hospital, yeah, i'd like to know sooner than later, but again, what can you do about it? you get there when you can.

The statistically biggest distraction is EATING while driving! The rate of accident is the same if you have your conversation off the road then get on right after as talking while driving. Your mind is still on the conversation. They'll probably be rerunning those articles since it's come up again.

While driving we don't use the cell phone. We pull over or ignore it & return the call later. (we also never eat & drive..... we select our music before we go.... I've never applied make up when driving....if we're unsure of directions we punch them into the nav BEFORE we leave)

Teens are more easily distracted, but restricted cell phone use for all would be more fair. Since teens are distracted easier, by just being beginners, we also have rules about the first couple of years of driving. The soccer moms are usually pretty good at doing 6 things at once. The ones that aren't good at talking & driving at the same time, probably aren't good at driving anyway!

On the other side though, where do we draw the line at stupid proofing? Music can also be distracting. An 18 year old girl ran over several cyclists while changing CD's. I'd rather see people on cell phones than putting on their make up, reading or shaving in traffic. Kids in the car are definately distracting. Maybe they should be banded from talking, fighting, begging, while in the car. "He's looking at me, I gotta go pee, are we there yet?"

I just wish we all had enough common sense to know what is dangerous for each of us on our own! I really hate forms of government stupid proofing! That's a bigger issue for me than who's using cell phones while driving!!:o

OK, off my soapbox......for now anyway!:D

Originally posted by Dave
personally, i think there should be some type of electronic device installed in cars that disable cell phones while the motor is running. i've lost count of the number of times i was almost clipped by some knucklehead gabbing away.

Remember that there a good way to use the cell phone while driving & getting directions or whatever, is to have the passenger(s) use the phone! If the cell phone is disabled while the motor is on, then it wouldn't be possible. You would also have to kill the car while pulled off on the side of the ride or idling at a gas station. Starting a car so often will be taxing on the starting system.

I don't know about the CA law, but the NJ and NY laws are against HAND-HELD cell phone use while driving. How many of the above listed issues would be resolved by restricting cell phone use to hands free only?

Let's remember that this is for our safety, not just to pad the state budget. And you teens out there, this type of law reduces your exorbitant car insurance rates by improving safety. That should matter to you too.:cool:

OK OK now for my 2 cents......

I believe you are all falling into the current mass Hysteria that all these mass marketed "Convenience Items" are to blame for someone's incapacity to drive , walk , think , breath etc.............
I drive over 30k miles a year various roads, various areas...
(rural, city, metro, country)
My opinion" It is the person using the item that is the Hazard not the item they are using!!!
Now if we would require people to REALLY know how to drive this would not be such a BIG issue???

I1:) :scratch:

I agree with that point - with the qualifier that these "convenience items" make a bad driver deadly and a good driver worse.

With all your driving, I assume you are a decent driver yet I would suspect you have still done your share of stupid or dangerous things while eating, talking on the phone, playing with the radio....etc.

And we would have to acknowledge that a cell phone is a different type of distraction from the others mentioned here. People are actually mentally transported somewhere else when deeply involved in a conversation. Most don't even know how many close calls or endangered lives they have left in their wake...:eek:

Originally posted by Dave
first off, people driving while getting directions on the phone is the stuff of nightmares. PULL OVER AND WRITE IT DOWN! cant remember what you wrote? PULL OVER AND RE-READ IT!
you dont know if its a cop behind you? keep going till you get to a well lit, populated area. it may require a trip to traffic court to explain it, but it is what self defense specialists and law enforcement personnel recommend.
the majority of ERs dont have ER surgeons. they have surgeons in house or on call which means they get paged. they arent the only ones that can give life saving directions either.
congressional leaders get drivers and cars.
as far as the robbing and stealing, what difference is it going to make knowing now or 15 minutes or even 3 hours from now? its over and done with.
if mom was in the hospital, yeah, i'd like to know sooner than later, but again, what can you do about it? you get there when you can.

*Sigh* where to start. You are wrong. Driving and getting directions is NOT the stuff of nightmares, because I've done it and seen it done safely. In addition, this is exactly what OnStar (GM, Saab, Chevy, Buick, ACURA, etc) and TeleAid (Mercedes) does. They give you directions while you drive. If you think for a second, this is also EXACTLY what the Navi does. It talks to you and tells you which way to go. You even have a screen to look at on the Navi. I'd say that's much more distracting, wouldn't you? Yet they sell well and nobody is complaining about banning navigation systems now are we?

Do all of us have pen and paper in the car? I know that I don't always have it. And for thsoe of us that live in urban areas, you know there is not always a safe place to pull over. Especially around here where dense fog is common. Pulling over on a freeway in dense fog in a city already loaded with idiot drivers = BAD.

Congressional leaders do not get drivers and cars. Some do but most don't. I don't know about you, but my local congressman drives a '99 Mazda 626 LX V6. Helluva car for the government to give out if they did, I'd say.

Princess also makes good points about eating and also having your mind on the conversation. My parents actually tell me not to waste time and pull over to do stuff, but I do anyway. I pull over to answer cell phones. I never keep extra CD's in the car (therefore can't change them). Generally I don't even keep a cell phone in the car and will keep talking to a minimum even if I get called. Never more than a minute.

Studies show that the cause of accidents is not having one hand off the wheel, it's having a conversation. Even hands-free devices therefore pose a significant threat, but nobody banned them yet. Shall I extend the data out and ban passengers who have the ability to talk because they're "potentially dangerous"?

There are devices that can alert you if your house or car is being robbed/broken into. In that case, I would like to know immediately to return home ASAP. Hey you know you're entitled to your opinion and all so I guess I'll see you at the protests from the opposite side.

I would love to agree that if this law went into effect, insurance rates would come down. However, I don't think it will happen. Teens will always be a greater risk regardless of whether this law exists or not. Add on to that the fact that insurance companies are big, greedy and have power, and I don't think they will come down. If they do I would probably support the law :)

I also agree it's more the driver than the cell phone. Like princess said a soccer mom can probably talk and drive at the same time. Hell, my dad has carried a 5-10 minute conversation doing 85 on the highway and never once even threatened to leave the lane. I'm pretty much the same I think, I just don't take that chance though.

Originally posted by BenjiBoy650
*Sigh* where to start. You are wrong. Driving and getting directions is NOT the stuff of nightmares, because I've done it and seen it done safely. In addition, this is exactly what OnStar (GM, Saab, Chevy, Buick, ACURA, etc) and TeleAid (Mercedes) does. They give you directions while you drive. If you think for a second, this is also EXACTLY what the Navi does. It talks to you and tells you which way to go. You even have a screen to look at on the Navi. I'd say that's much more distracting, wouldn't you? Yet they sell well and nobody is complaining about banning navigation systems now are we?

Do all of us have pen and paper in the car? I know that I don't always have it. And for thsoe of us that live in urban areas, you know there is not always a safe place to pull over. Especially around here where dense fog is common. Pulling over on a freeway in dense fog in a city already loaded with idiot drivers = BAD.

Congressional leaders do not get drivers and cars. Some do but most don't. I don't know about you, but my local congressman drives a '99 Mazda 626 LX V6. Helluva car for the government to give out if they did, I'd say.

Princess also makes good points about eating and also having your mind on the conversation. My parents actually tell me not to waste time and pull over to do stuff, but I do anyway. I pull over to answer cell phones. I never keep extra CD's in the car (therefore can't change them). Generally I don't even keep a cell phone in the car and will keep talking to a minimum even if I get called. Never more than a minute.

Studies show that the cause of accidents is not having one hand off the wheel, it's having a conversation. Even hands-free devices therefore pose a significant threat, but nobody banned them yet. Shall I extend the data out and ban passengers who have the ability to talk because they're "potentially dangerous"?

There are devices that can alert you if your house or car is being robbed/broken into. In that case, I would like to know immediately to return home ASAP. Hey you know you're entitled to your opinion and all so I guess I'll see you at the protests from the opposite side.

I would love to agree that if this law went into effect, insurance rates would come down. However, I don't think it will happen. Teens will always be a greater risk regardless of whether this law exists or not. Add on to that the fact that insurance companies are big, greedy and have power, and I don't think they will come down. If they do I would probably support the law :)

I also agree it's more the driver than the cell phone. Like princess said a soccer mom can probably talk and drive at the same time. Hell, my dad has carried a 5-10 minute conversation doing 85 on the highway and never once even threatened to leave the lane. I'm pretty much the same I think, I just don't take that chance though.

ok. to get completely off the point, there is a big difference between congressional leaders and a local congressman.
secondly, if your dad wants to do 85mph (well above the speed limit i'm guessing) while chatting on the phone for 10 minutes, i'd have to say he is a bit of a dolt. does he have any comprehension of how fast things change/go by at that speed? that is just plain irresponsible IMO.
as far as nav systems go, i dont like them either. why add yet another distraction?
people need to pay more attention to the road. the phone calls can wait.

Originally posted by Dave
ok. to get completely off the point, there is a big difference between congressional leaders and a local congressman.
secondly, if your dad wants to do 85mph (well above the speed limit i'm guessing) while chatting on the phone for 10 minutes, i'd have to say he is a bit of a dolt. does he have any comprehension of how fast things change/go by at that speed? that is just plain irresponsible IMO.
as far as nav systems go, i dont like them either. why add yet another distraction?
people need to pay more attention to the road. the phone calls can wait.

I'd say that my dad isn't much of a dolt, especially when you weren't there to see how even 100 would be easily and safely attainable. All flat land with fences around the highway and no animals around anyway. Not to mention there were Suburbans towing trailers easily doing 80 and vans full of kids passing us like clockwork on I-5, sometimes said to be the straight highway in the world. It was a perfect sunny day on smooth road in a newer, perfectly capable car. Of course, the icing on the cake is that my dad has never had an at-fault accident in his 20+ years of driving.

Not to mention that my dad has raised two straight A students that always place in the top 5% of their class, while successfully operating a hotel AND a carwash simultaneously, owning a house and having no car payments, not to mention he was/is making money off the stock market when everyone was losing their pants. Not much of a "dolt" if I may say so myself.

You do realize that when you oppose Navigation systems, that you are going against the majority? Used to be you could only get the navi in cars that were mega-expensive, but now you can get them in a plain jane Honda Accord. I'd say that there's a reason for that. If you would prefer to pull over and look at the map on a dark night in a bad part of town you do that. As for me, I prefer to go on living and not get shot/robbed/mugged.

congratulations to your dad for being an astute businessman and a good father to raise two A students. that wasnt the point. the fact the he was driving at high speeds while talking on the phone is irresponsible and stupid. plain and simple. accidents happen on wide straight roads all the time. so what if other cars were going by him.
i may be going against the majority as far as the nav systems go, but that is fine with me. it is just a trendy toy to have in your car. i cant imagine that the majority of people that have those things use them more than a few times a year if that. i could be wrong about that, but i still think its just a trendy thing.

Originally posted by Dave
congratulations to your dad for being an astute businessman and a good father to raise two A students. that wasnt the point. the fact the he was driving at high speeds while talking on the phone is irresponsible and stupid. plain and simple. accidents happen on wide straight roads all the time. so what if other cars were going by him.
i may be going against the majority as far as the nav systems go, but that is fine with me. it is just a trendy toy to have in your car. i cant imagine that the majority of people that have those things use them more than a few times a year if that. i could be wrong about that, but i still think its just a trendy thing.

You just wait until you see the CL500 I saw with an LCD screen in place of the airbag. You'll love it.

:rolleyes:
at least it will be right in front...

Originally posted by Dave
so what if other cars were going by him.


That is part of the point. Tennessee dropped the speed limit for semis several years ago to 15 mph below the regular speed limit. Accidents almost doubled with 18 wheelers. The conclusion was that the speed differential was causing more accidents.

I think I do see your point in the above statement though but not sure. I don't really think you mean that if the speed limit is 45 mph as it is on the interstate going into Atlanta from Birmingham & > 90% are doing 75-80 that it's safe for me to do 45 & not 70-75?

I guess it's all in HOW you'd use the tools like NAVI. I dont find it anymore distracting than a person. You simply tell it where you plan to go. Then it warns you of upcoming turns. Going on I5, it'll will say the exit is in 1 mile, then half mile, then "take". So it's apparently set up for speed too. In town it says things like second right, or next left.... It's been great!! Although we drive I5 enough that we don't NEED it for knowing where we're going there, it's sure been a wonderful thing when we've had to detour while in the LA area. Or needed to take a pee stop in unfamilar places! In many areas we've been there's an off ramp, but not an onramp. We've gone in circles trying to get back on the freeway before!!

Having a hand held GPS thing too, I find the factory NAV much less distracting!! Being centered also makes it great for the passenger to help touch the "detour" spot instead of driver. I wouldn't like the kind that is in front of the driver. Glancing at it is no more effort than checking your speed. You don't need to memorize the map since it will tell you when you're coming to a turn. She' turns down the music, tells you what you need to hear, then the music goes back where you had it.

The NAVI system also tells you in advance what lane you need for the next change. Example: you just pulled on a 6 lane freeway & while getting on you already know that you either need to move way right or not. So you're not pulling WAY over at the last minute! It's safer then!

Sunday the wedding we went to was on a narrow 2 lane road.... we'd put the address into the NAV & could simply pay attention to driving instead of where we were. 7 miles up the road, she says destination 1 mile, then half mile....we could start looking for the turn at the correct time instead of slowing too do it early!


Speeding is a separate issue over the gadgets. On some of our roadways cars doing the speed limit are actually a hazard! When you have a limit of 65 & someone decides to do that when the rest of the cars are going 80, it causes frustration & passing & a bunch of brake lights!!

Just GO WITH THE FLOW!!!!:)

Originally posted by benjamming
That is part of the point. Tennessee dropped the speed limit for semis several years ago to 15 mph below the regular speed limit. Accidents almost doubled with 18 wheelers. The conclusion was that the speed differential was causing more accidents.

I think I do see your point in the above statement though but not sure. I don't really think you mean that if the speed limit is 45 mph as it is on the interstate going into Atlanta from Birmingham & > 90% are doing 75-80 that it's safe for me to do 45 & not 70-75?

YES!! EXACTLY MY POINT!! Wow thank you princess and benjamming, someone really understands :)

I mean heck just imagine someone doing 55 in an 80 flow (like we had to do once because of my friend who follows the speed limit...), and then along comes a "gabber" chattering on their cell phone, being a "dolt" for going with the flow, and WHAM straight into our car. Hey that would suck. That's why my dad goes what everyone else is going :) It must mean something to be going with the flow, because numerous midwest states have "minimum" speed limits as well as maximum, so I can't be alone in my thinking :D

We rented a car for one week and it came with a Nav system that I constantly played with. It did save us once, but overall I'd say it's so slow to get directions that the only thing it was truly good for was the trip computer. But that was a long time ago with a handheld unit clipped onto the dash. Haven't tried any Nav's recently, hopefully they've improved by leaps and bounds!

Princess, do you remember where the spots were where there was an onramp but no offramp? I've never seen that and want to see for myself next time, because I've never really noticed that. We always just stop at the big spots with gas stations and restaurants for food and stuff, so they always have an onramp. I've never noticed any without onramps hehe.

i think we missed each others point on that. either that or i need to brush up on my writing skills. i wasnt complaining about him going with the flow, just the fact that he was going at X speed while talking. if anything, at that speed with others going by you, one would need to pay even more attention to the road. things change so very fast at that speed that even the slightest distration can be devastating.

Originally posted by Dave
i think we missed each others point on that. either that or i need to brush up on my writing skills. i wasnt complaining about him going with the flow, just the fact that he was going at X speed while talking. if anything, at that speed with others going by you, one would need to pay even more attention to the road. things change so very fast at that speed that even the slightest distration can be devastating.

I still don't think so. It was a perfect day in a capable car with more than one set of eyes on the road. I still disagree with you all around on cell phone usage.

*sigh*

I think we're a point to agree to disagree. This is exactly why it's so hard to pass legislation on it!

We can just continue to gripe about bad drivers......whether or not they're on the phone.

I have never been a person to cuss, so when I started driving a bizillion years ago.... I called stupid drivers "hotdogs", not as in hotrodding, as in "you stupid hotdog". I said it so much that my buddies named my car hotdog! They bought my a cute window sticker & other little hotdog accessories for it.:D

Just like the rest of life, there are some people that are extrememly good with multi-tasks, some are OK & some that can barely walk & chew gum..... we can't weed out those drivers. So unless they decide to "stupid proof" this too, we just need to be careful.

The fewer distractions the better when driving, but different things will always be what distracts us. We can only control ourselves.......then complain when the next person screws up.:rolleyes: