mobile phone law!

[nbn_lonestar]

When will the mobile phone law become effective? I've heard recently that CA had just past the bill against using a mobile phone while operating a vehicle but it won't be effective for another 2 years or so.

Any LEOs knows exactly what the date will be?

There have been 20+ ocasions this summer alone where I was almost got ran over by drivers switching lanes, failed to yield etc... because they we're busy on the phone!:mad It gets really dangerous out there now with the increasing mobile phone uses. It's no longer "I didn't see the motorcycle" but rather "I wasn't looking"

other than that, ride SAFE everyone

[BlacKat]

the assembly passed a bill, that is all for now, it still has to be signed by the gov. If he ok's it, it will take effect July 1st, 2008.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/15395824.htm

[nbn_lonestar]

how the F**k can you compare a distracted, irresponsible driver who has the potential to kill anyone on the road to "Helmets while you're riding the horse? Air bags while you're sitting in your bathtub?"

AIR BAGS WHILE YOU'RE SITTING IN YOUR BATHTUB???? CMON!!

[Dopesick]

Originally posted by nbn_lonestar
AIR BAGS WHILE YOU'RE SITTING IN YOUR BATHTUB???? CMON!!

He should stop farting in the tub. :laughing

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by nbn_lonestar
"Helmets while you're riding the horse?

Uhmmm- it's actually not a bad idea... you ever seen a horse riding accident involving a head injury- not pretty.

[zombi]

I also think this is a dumb ass nanny state law. What's stoping the police from ticketing drivers for "unsafe behavior" in general, be it from cellphone distraction, putting on makeup, eating, whatever? We don't need specific laws targeting major industry like this. it's knee jerk feel good BS. We have enough laws already! Why don't they make it illegal to have a radio in your car while they are at it. The stupidest thing about this law is that there is a sheer ton of research that says it doesn't matter whether you have hands free cellphone or not-- it's the same distractive effect either way.

[nbn_lonestar]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
Uhmmm- it's actually not a bad idea... you ever seen a horse riding accident involving a head injury- not pretty.

Im sure it can be reaaly bad. Still the point is that can a horse rider who doesn't where a helmet has the potential to kill other horse riders if he/she doesnt wear a helmet? I guess the point here is that not
only the driver on the phone is dangerous to themself but theres a huge risk for the driver to seriously injure or kill others on the road. In other words, I have nothing to say if stupid people get themselves killed, thats Darwin's at work, but if it involves others then its just not right.

[nbn_lonestar]

Originally posted by zombi
I also think this is a dumb ass nanny state law. What's stoping the police from ticketing drivers for "unsafe behavior" in general, be it from cellphone distraction, putting on makeup, eating, whatever? We don't need specific laws targeting major industry like this. it's knee jerk feel good BS. We have enough laws already! Why don't they make it illegal to have a radio in your car while they are at it. The stupidest thing about this law is that there is a sheer ton of research that says it doesn't matter whether you have hands free cellphone or not-- it's the same distractive effect either way.

You have a good point and I agree w/ you to a certain extent but we defenitely need to do something about this growing problem.

I see it as another seatbelt law. if seat belt law passed, this should defenitely pass. Again, my point is that the risks involve others lives on the road not just the driver's life.

[Cyclesuzy]

Unfortunately, it is difficult to legislate common sense. It should be common sense to not be distracted in your car and watch the road, but people will still be distracted even if they have a handsfree unit for their phone. Think about the times you've seen a group of young people ridin around - they might not be talking on the phone but I've seen them not paying attention and being a hazard. The only thing this will generate is more fees for the state and potential PR. I don't think it will make us any safer on the roads. Just my .02 cents.

[GingerNinja]

what about eating whilst driving? I think that more distracting than talking on a phone. It all comes down to multi-tasking and common sense.

We need to legislate our legislators !

[ateamer]

Multitasking is multitasking, whether the distraction from driving is a cell phone, putting a CD in the deck, eating a burger, or talking to the passenger in the right seat. People who can't drive while on the cell are that way in spite of the cell, not because of it. They are unskilled already; the cell phone is visible, while the CD or lunch are not seen from outside, so the cell phone takes the blame.

Great. Come 2008, I'm going to have to buy one of those stupid Bluetooth earpieces and look like some refugee from a Star Trek Convention (StaTreCon).

[NorCalBusa]

Guvna signed it yesterday, its law in 2008.

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_257190631.html

New Law To Ban Handheld Cell Phones While Driving

(CBS 5 / BCN / AP) OAKLAND Dialing while driving could cost California motorists up to $50 under a bill signed into law Friday by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The new law bars using hand-held cell phones while driving except with the use of a "hands-free" device.

At a ceremony in Oakland, Schwarzenegger signed the new law -- which will go into effect July 1, 2008. First offenders would face a $20 fine and subsequent offenses would be subject to a $50 fine.

It's similar to laws in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.

The bill's author, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto said distracted driving leads to tens of thousands of car accidents annually, with many of the accidents resulting in serious injury or even death.

Cell-phone use is the top cause of accidents triggered by distracted drivers, according to California Highway Patrol statistics going back to 2001.

Simitian, who has been working on the legislation for five years, said the law "is a common-sense measure which will make our roads safer and save lives."

Simitian gave special recognition to Verizon Wireless because he said the company had supported the bill since he first introduced it in 2001 and was the only industry supporter at that time.

Schwarzenegger said he signed the measure because "it's really dangerous when you talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time," an admonition he has given his teenage daughter.

The governor said even though the law would not take effect until 2008, "people should stop using cell phones (while driving) now" because looking away from the road for even a moment can cause an accident.

Simitian said the delay until the law takes effect would give state officials and the Department of Motor Vehicles time to mount a public education campaign notifying drivers about the bill. He said it also gives cell phone makers time to develop hands-free technology.

[nbn_lonestar]

LEO's input? when the time comes to enforce this, how strict will you LEOs be on citing drivers.

[thump]

Someone else said it very well.

We don't need this kind of law. We need a law that covers drivers who are not paying the attention that driving deserves and are thus a hazard to themselves and others. Doesn't matter if it's using a phone, appying make-up, changing the music, eating or whatever.

One point if no collision caused, two points if there is a collision.

[nbn_lonestar]

I know most of us don't feel this law is needed, but regardless of our opinions it IS now a law. It is what it is. If you don't like, petition against it.

I'm just interested in how strictly LEOs' will enforce this when it becomes effective.

[motorman4life]

I am a firm believer that we there need 3 new laws in CA:

1) A comprehensive distracted driving law that states that if you commit any vehicle code violation, however slight, and in the opinion of the investigating or witnessing officer, that the act or omission was a result of inattentive or distracted driving, a distracted driving enhancement can be added to the primary violation.

I don't think everyone should be penalized because some people cannot multi-task. There are many acts that can result in distracted driving, including putting on make-up, reading maps and magazines and eating. Some people cannot have a conversation with a passenger without putting others at unnecessary risk.

2) An aggressive driving law which lists specific aggressive driving acts by existing code violation and states that if an officer witnesses 3 or more of these violations committed consecutively or concurrently, it can be cited as "aggressive driving". I think the first offense should be a minor fine, like $50 and no points. Subsequent convictions should be handled like reckless driving violations. 2 points, etc..

The aggressive "Fast and Furious" type driving on freeways and highways is completely unnecessary and frequently leads to catastrophe. I regularly see people swerving through lanes, tailgating, driving on the shoulder, making unsafe lane changes and generally putting us all at risk. Many states have cracked down on this irresponsible behavior and have seen amazing results.

3) Persons over 18, that have had a valid motorcycle license for over 3 years, that are not on court or supervised probation and can show proof of insurance and proof of medical coverage or medical insurance, should be allowed to ride motorcycles without a helmet on city streets (not on the freeway). Same goes for passengers over 18 with proof of medical coverage/insurance.

I don't agree with the helmet law, but the argument for the lid law is compelling. The raw numbers in reduced fatalities speak for themselves. That said, the risk goes down when experience and age go up. Freeways are another place where you really don't stand a chance without a lid.

Anyhow, these are my personal opinions.

As for enforcement. If I see someone drifting over the lines, weaving, failing to signal and they are talking on the phone... well, I stop and cite them already. I will cite for the hands-on phone when the law goes into effect. The life I save might be yours!

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by motorman4life


As for enforcement. If I see someone drifting over the lines, weaving, failing to signal and they are talking on the phone... well, I stop and cite them already. I will cite for the hands-on phone when the law goes into effect. The life I save might be yours!

Besides the failure to signal, what do you cite them for?

[}Dragon{]

I just watched a neighbor kid texting on his cell phone while riding his bicycle... as he passed my driveway, he clipped his right handle bar on the telephone pole and went boom- after I figured he wasn't hurt, I had to hold my breath to NOT laugh :|

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Besides the failure to signal, what do you cite them for?
21658(a) CVC for crossing lines, swerving and not maintaining lane discipline.
21700 CVC for newspaper on the wheel/dash obstructing view
22108 CVC for failure to signal turn.
22107 for failure to signal lane change and for swerving.

[}Dragon{]

Hey M4ML: I'll argue with you on the helmet law...

I'd rather see H&S11357 removed from the books than the helmet law.


One causes dain bramage and the other prevents it :toothless

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by motorman4life
21658(a) CVC for crossing lines, swerving and not maintaining lane discipline.
21700 CVC for newspaper on the wheel/dash obstructing view
22108 CVC for failure to signal turn.
22107 for failure to signal lane change and for swerving.

WOW !

You must work in a low crime area or for the CHP:teeth