CT requires Handsfree & No under 18

[viewfly]

Connecticut Senate OKs cell phone ban
State drivers would be forced to use hands-free devices

On Thursday, the state Senate voted 32-4 to ban cell phone use by drivers unless they are using a headset or other hands-free device. The House has already passed the measure, so it now heads to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has said she will likely sign it. Those who continue to chatter away while clutching their phone could face a $75 fine after Oct. 1.


The Connecticut legislature has been debating cell phone restrictions since 1999. In the meantime, New York and New Jersey have barred drivers from using hand-held cell phones.

Several other states also prohibit young drivers from using any type of cell phone. The proposed Connecticut law does the same thing, barring phone use by drivers under 18.

All drivers could use hand-held phones in case of an emergency

See article

It's about time.

[EdwardP]

Originally Posted by viewfly [B] Several other states also prohibit young drivers from using any type of cell phone. The proposed Connecticut law does the same thing, barring phone use by drivers under 18.

If the law as proposed, becomes law, and contains the above provision, it should be immediately challenged on constitutional grounds. For one thing, it discriminates on the basis of age, and I believe such a provision also violates their right to freedom of speech.

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by EdwardP If the law as proposed, becomes law, and contains the above provision, it should be immediately challenged on constitutional grounds. For one thing, it discriminates on the basis of age, and I believe such a provision also violates their right to freedom of speech.

But so does drinking,driving, smoking and voting divide rights up by age!?

[Dieseldoug]

I'm in favor of this actually. Some people on the highway and roads are just a-holes when it comes to talking and driving. Of course I've learned to steer with my knees so I'm all set that leaves my hands free to hold my cell and adjust the radio.

[Etorres777]

Originally Posted by EdwardP If the law as proposed, becomes law, and contains the above provision, it should be immediately challenged on constitutional grounds. For one thing, it discriminates on the basis of age, and I believe such a provision also violates their right to freedom of speech.

I agree, it's pretty sad when some adults are stupider than kids..

[EdwardP]

Originally Posted by viewfly But so does drinking,driving, smoking and voting divide rights up by age!?

There are valid reasons for a minimum age for the above four issues.

A minimum age shouldn't be placed on speaking.

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by EdwardP There are valid reasons for a minimum age for the above four issues. A minimum age shouldn't be placed on speaking.

Yes, and the valid reasons all are immaturity and inexperience. I think this (the cell ban) is a good idea, just like the way CT has a 6 month period for new, under 18 drivers not to carry passengers of same age. The ban has little to do with speaking, but distraction and safety. I doubt a legal case can be made against the ban. Driving is not a right, but requires a license.

[Etorres777]

Originally Posted by viewfly Yes, and the valid reasons all are immaturity and inexperience. I think this (the cell ban) is a good idea, just like the way CT has a 6 month period for new, under 18 drivers not to carry passengers of same age. The ban has little to do with speaking, but distraction and safety. I doubt a legal case can be made against the ban. Driving is not a right, but requires a license.

Yeah it does make sense. Here in Texas, drivers under 18 are only allowed to have one person under the age of 18 in the vehicle for the first 6 months, after that, nothing.