Cell Phone Laws

In the People's Republic of Santa Monica, it is forbidden to talk on a handheld cell phone while driving. You may use a hands-free device (the corded type, the Bluetooth type, or the fancy-car type). Fines are $50 per offence and if there is another offence (speeding, failure to yield to pedestrians, etc.) it doubles the fine.

 

Excellent!!!

LOL

 

It is also prohibited in Paterson, NJ, but not in the rest of NJ. This was one of the first places to adopt such a ruling years ago.

 

The only province it's currently illegal in Canada is Newfoundland. It's a $450 fine and 4 points off your lisence.

 

(Insert gratuitous joke about Newfies not being able to do two things at once here.)

Actually, it's illegal in Charlottetown too according to signs posted on TC1.

 

Hehe. I hope it's becomes illegal here in Nova Scotia soon. I've been using it as a basis to sell a lot of handsfree sets. "Well, you know. It's going to be illegal to drive with a cell phone very soon. It's already illegal in NFLD and we're next. This Handsfree set will save you lots of money on tickets and fines."

It works too. I just hope it happens soon. I dont want 500 people coming in and yelling at me because it hasn't happened yet. Either way it's safe driving.

 

What gets me is the idiocy of such laws as written. All pure political moves.. These cell phone laws allow hands free devices. Most studies I have read found the mental distraction the main problem. The speaking and concerntrating on the conversation is much more the problem than the hand distraction of holding a unit..

 

Good point. What's the difference between driving drunk and driving while talking on a cell phone? Bad Breath!!!!

Seriously though...I live and die by my Jarba Earboom....nothing fancy for me, just the simple ear gel version and the small boom. But you know what...there is a big difference. I keep both hands on the wheel, and I also do have more attention diverted towards the road. I find it ironic because a few Cellphone providers have on their "hold" music the keys to successful driving...and usually the main one is "DO NOT TALK ON YOUR CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!!!!! IT DIVERTS MUCH ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE ROAD!"...which I find humorous, because these are the same people who are going to try and push hands free accessories for your phone for "Safe driving". (And charge you an overpriced price for a piece of plastic and foam)

Ironic isn't it? It's a very handy device...but you are correct. I can get by with it, and most people can...but not everyone can talk on a hands free device and drive.

 

i believe that it is the distraction of holding the phone while trying to drive because otherwise just holding a conversation with someone in the car would make you distracted enough to appear drunk as well. So i agree the handsfree could be the ticket to safe driving while talking on the cell phone.

Lora :cycle:

 

I live in Illinois as well, and I'm pretty sure the law states you have to have a hands free device of some kind, whether it be a wired earbud, or bluetooth. Basically they want you to have both hands on the wheel.

The funny thing is, I see cops rolling around all the time holding a phone up to their head. I don't think it would be a good idea to initiate a citizen's arrest in that situation though.

 

From 1 January 2008, it will be illegal to drive and talk in California unless you have a handsfree set.

 

I agree that it is a distraction to use a wireless phone while driving even with a handsfree device, however it's more of a distraction to not use a handsfree device.

I thought they had passed a law here but yesterday I found out that they tried to pass a law but it didn't go through. I thought the reason it hadn't been enforced yet was because they were warning everyone and easing their way into it.

I live in a college town and it would be interesting to see how many accidents are caused while drivers are on their wireless phone.

 

no stupid laws like that yet, here in oklahoma, thank god.:browani:

 

I think DC has a headset required rule.

 

I don't actually think it is a state law, yet. It is a law up in Chicago, however. I guess I don't have a problem with it if you are using a handsfree piece. I have heard of some places trying to outlaw them while driving all together, becuase it can be distracting. This I disagree with. What is next, not allowing the driver to speak to passengers??

 

I think you're right. I remember when Chicago passed it, but I live downstate and can't recall it being passed statewide. I'd prefer it to be though.

 

yes it is and it is part of a stronger law where the cops can stop you for eating as well as being distracted by the radio (they have picked on one of my friends for that as he was singing along so they said but it was over turned as he showed proof that his radio was broken at the time and was waiting for a factory replacement. So if you are in DC be carefull. Oh yes, VA still does not have the law but does have the law against having a dog loose in the car while driving. Which in my opnion is more dangerous than using the cell phone.

 

How do you get the dog to stay in the seatbelt and shoulder harness? My children wouldn't stay in the child safety seats.

COtech

 

That was my exact thought, but it seenms they want the do to be contoled and to stay away from the Driver and one thing they talked about is to put a cage barier so the dog has no way of going to the front or leash the dog to stay within the rear area. I don't think they meant taht the dog can not be loose in the back and tied to the seat belt just don't let him get to the front.

 

In CT, they are upping the fine for driving and holding a cell phone, to $250.

 

Here is a link for a list:http://www.statehighwaysafety.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

 

While I don't have an issue that might be better.. a lot of people here in Greenwich (my town) just pay the Current $100 fine and go back to talking on the phone again.... But what really makes me mad is when you see the town cops and State police talking on the phone while driving as well.. But god forbid if you pass one and on the cellphone at the same time.....

 

Is it January, or July? The two articles that I have read mention it going into effect July 2008, with a minimum fine of $20.00 - which is nothing.. It's practically a trip to Starbucks!

 

Brookline, MA has a very strict law against cell phone use w/o a headset. One of my friends was hit with a $200 fine. Im not sure about any other towns in MA. As for New York, I wont even bother picking up the phone if i dont have my headset with me. :browani:

 

Dekalb County GA (East half of Atlanta) has passed laws now as well.
up to $500 fine if they prove you were on the phone while involved in an accident.

http://www.sundaypaper.com/NEWS/New...icleView/articleId/1821/090306-CovetNews.aspx

How can they prove it...well the law makes it easy to subpoena your personal call logs from the carrier.

Personal opinion...IT'S BS!

Most places already have laws dealing with distracted drivers. The existing laws would do the job if they would be enforced. What these "cell phone" laws do is give law enforcement the right to randomly hassled drivers and generate more revenue.

At least the Dekalb law limits it to accidents where as most of these laws are allowing drivers to be ticketed while driving down the road without regards to if they are being a safe driver or not.

They make for good press at election time because most people are too dumb to research if there is already existing legislation that would cover the situation. Now if somebody is actually driving fine while holding a phone its law to hassle them that will tie up the officer with a ticket instead of going after a murder or thief.

The existing laws allow for more leeway on the officers discretion. If the person is maintaining lane, checking mirrors and obviously aware of their surrounding, why is that phone any different then talking to somebody in the car? Why do the officers have the right to hassle them at that point?

Don't get me wrong...If somebody is driving in and unsafe manner I WANT THEM NAILED. But if they are not driving in an unsafe manner why make it so easy to hassle them? We have too many laws now and it's already covered.

This is just a Revenue generator where the citizen looses all rights to defend themselves in court. You get a ticket it is instant fine...do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not even begin to think you have any rights.

 

I hear ya, Grimreaper..

Cell phones are an easy target, the thing that I notice about most cell phone users (who talk & drive) is that their driving isn't necessarily erratic, they just drive super slow (generally 15-20 mph below the speed limit)

The drivers I am most scared of being next to, behind, in front of, are those who like to put on makeup, or are reading the newspaper. Sure. Cell phones can be a distraction, but there are bigger distractions out there..

IMHO, its a silly law. I drive with one hand on the wheel even when I am not on my cell phone. Meh..

 

One problem that I heard about all those studies is that when they talked about a cell phone in a car they counted that as a possible cause of an accident. One isurance agent that i know told me that teh suddies that were made were so flawed that one can not rely on them (just for a cell phone being in a car durring an accident it was used as an argument against cell phone use even if the phone was not being used when the accident happned). My thought is when an accident happens then the Officer should look at teh cell phone and look at the last call and its time and if it correlates to be at teh same time as the accident then that should be counted.

Don't mistake me, I do beleive in using teh headset all the time while driving and also do try to keep my calls to a minimum. If I am going to have a lenghty call I do pull over but if the call is less than a minute or two then I take extra caution but that does not mean slowing down way below the speed limit.

 

Yep its not the first time they have pulled that stunt. Car&Driver had an editorial about speed related accidents many years ago. Same flawed reporting/ data mining.

On the accident report there was a innocent looking box that said "over speed limit". Seems innocent enough doesn't it? Well here is how it flaws the data:

Car "A" traveling down road with posted speed limit of 40mph. They have right of way. They are asked what speed they were traveling. They state "45mph".

Car "B" runs stop sign and hits car "A". Car B is clearly at fault. Drive of Car is not cited and the accident report clearly absolves them of any responsibility in the accident.

That report gets filed and that Box that said they were over the speed limit is now construed as "Speed contributing to the accident" they way the data is analyzed.

You can make polls and statistic say anything you want to if you ask the question in the correct way.

 

Did they change it again?

Colour me shocked.