I got a ticket for driving while using a cell phone today

[MindPilot]

Yeah I know there are some of you who think that makes me a threat to the very existence of humankind, but this has got to be one of the dumbest laws out there. First, it is not a moving violation so no points are assessed; that makes it little more than an expensive phone call. The fine is $20, about half the average parking ticket around here.

But here's the dumb part: The actual illegal act is holding the device to your ear, not taking your eyes off the road looking down to dial, not being distracted by the conversation, but simply having the thing up to your head.

Then there are the exceptions;

(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

(e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles:

(1) (A) A motor truck, as defined in Section 410, or a truck tractor, as defined in Section 655, that requires either a commercial class A or class B driver’s license to operate.

(B) The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a person driving a pickup truck, as defined in Section 471.

(2) An implement of husbandry that is listed or described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 36000) of Division 16.

(3) A farm vehicle that is exempt from registration and displays an identification plate as specified in Section 5014 and is listed in Section 36101.

(4) A commercial vehicle, as defined in Section 260, that is registered to a farmer and driven by the farmer or an employee of the farmer, and is used in conducting commercial agricultural operations, including, but not limited to, transporting agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to, or from, a farm.

(5) A tow truck, as defined in Section 615.

(f) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.

(g) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.

I did not point out to the officer that he was talking on the radio while he was pulling me over mostly because he was kind enough to not mention that I was going close to 80.

[HuckleB]

1. There should be no exemptions, and the fine needs to be in line with the fine for a DUI.

[tyedyeto]

48. With a DUI?

For talking on a cell phone? Give me a fucking break. Next thing I know, you'll be saying we should not only fine those people for talking on their phones, but it should be a capital offense. How many lashes should that be? And I'm not talking 'wet noodles'.

[alarimer]

69. Yes, talking on a cell phone will driving is as dangerous as driving under the influence.

The impairment is the same. You (or any of us) are simply not equipped to pay attention to the conversation and to driving. This has been proven by several studies.

So yes, the fines should be equivalent and repeated offenses should earn jail time or confiscation of license.

[Powdered Toast Man]

72. I couldn't count the number of times I thought someone was drunk

and it turned out they were "just" talking on their cell phones. I don't know who has a harder time staying in their lane. The drunk or cell phone users.

[Orsino]

163. It *could* be as dangerous as DUI...

...depending, of course, on what a caller is doing or how impaired a drinker is. As the OP noted, what's illegal is getting caught, and one is usually caught only when seen obviously using a phone while driving.

Impairments vary, but I'm sure that a conversation with a passenger may be even more distracting/impairing than a given phone call or amount of drink--but no one will seriously try to pass a zero-tolerance sort of law about talking. No, we seize on the use of a phone as something magically monopolizing our attention, every time and to the same degree, because sane enforcement is not practical. If we're going to be outraged over cell phone use while driving, let's save a bit for drivers who argue with passengers, or who try to fold road maps, or who are choking down a last french fry while they change CDs. Any of these things could be fatally distracting, but it's convenient to pretend that cell phones are significantly different.

Perhaps when cell phones have been around as long as automobiles, perhaps when phones are held to be as much an expression of masculine power as a guns are, our laws will entitle us to make calls whenever we damned please, resulting deaths be damned.

[HuckleB]

171. Drunk drivers and cell phone drivers put others at the same risk.

Why shouldn't the consequence be the same?

[glen123098]

65. Thankfully, you don't set public policy.

[HuckleB]

172. So you don't think equal justice for equal offenses is legitimate?

[hlthe2b]

71. In Colorado, first time is $50 and second, $100

I'm all in favor of these bans, even though I'm not immune from having used them in the past.

However, a couple years ago, I watched a teen fly airborne over two cars stopped at an intersection that he never saw because he was so engaged on his cell phone-- coming to land on two others. Five cars were involved and this kid should have been dead. He never even slowed down. By some inexplicable reason, everyone survived, but 4/5 cars were totaled and several people injured. I saw it as it happened, but was just fortunate enough to be in the far right turn lane, out of the line of fire. It was damned frightening, though.

And having myself almost been run over as a pedestrian on more than one occasion by someone distracted on their cell phone as they turned right on red or conversely been almost run off the road by someone driving a big ass SUV and paying no attention to their lane as they talked away on the cell phone.... I am all in favor of these bans.. Absodamnedlutely!!

[HuckleB]

176. Most of us have done it.

We just didn't realize the reality of the danger. It seems so benign at first.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Callng 911 actually is a valid one

as to the DUI in other circumstances, I am with you. Too many studies that show it is quite the equivalent.

Why 911? Well perfect example... three days ago the accident happened right in front of my BIL... so reporting the accident ten seconds after it happened helped to get EMS, FIRE and POLICE out that much faster.

[toadzilla]

134. so immediately revoke the liscense and a $15000 penalty for a phone call?

im sure that would go far....

[HuckleB]

174. Umm.

It's not just a phone call. You're putting others at risk at the same level of many drunk drivers.

Denial of the reality doesn't change that. The only difference is the number of people who choose to drive and talk.

[Syntheto]

146. Damned straight...

...twice this week, I've had people drive without any regard to anything other than that conversation on their cellphone... pulling right in front of me to change three lanes for one, then the old, 'make a left from the far right lane right in front of people because I'm too busy talking on my fucking phone.' That was a white-knuckled moment.

This has happened to everyone I know; my wife, her sisters, my Dad, my sons who drive, my sister (who finally, after becoming a near-fatality from some idiot screaming on their cellphone and neglecting to notice the red light and driving right on through the intersection. Right. On. Through. And not even bother to stop, because I doubt if they knew what they had even done.

They should be banned, except for emergencies. Everyone knows this, but the cell phone industry lobby is far too powerful for that. Yeah, drive responsibly. So, maybe one could smoke a joint or drink beer while they're driving, also. What the hell, as long as it's 'hands-free' and 'responsible.'

We need health care reform in place, when all these addicted cell-heads develop brain cancer in the future.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MindPilot]

12. Nice to meet you too

Apparently you have never spent any time on an LA freeway. 80 is slow.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

38. Chill the fuck out. That's normal for CA roads.

So is...

80 with a map open
80 while reading a book
80 while eating a bowl of cereal
80 while steering with your knees and drumming on the steering wheel with drumsticks.

All of which I've seen while driving CA roads.

[Bigmack]

59. As I said.. dumber than a bag of hammers. nt

[pnwmom]

76. Then Californians ARE nuts! n/t

[omega minimo]

106. That's why they had to make it against the law in California to drive while using a cell phone.

And LA? Ya'll like to make it sound really zippy but ya sit in GRIDLOCK most of the time, stop and go, maybe getting up to 15 or 20 at a time...

:rofl:

[tkmorris]

109. And every one of those is just plain dirt stupid

Saying it's "normal" hasn't got shit to do with it. Check the death tolls on your freeways sometime.

[MindPilot]

117. nationwide the traffic death rate is the lowest it has even been.

NTHSA stats.

[Gormy Cuss]

170. Yet it's still the leading cause of death for persons age 3-34, according to NHTSA

Just because safety enhancements like air bags and mandatory seat restraint laws may have reduced the death rate doesn't mean that there isn't considerable room for improvement on other issues such as speeding and distracted driving.

[Iggo]

118. And he's not kidding about that eating a bowl of cereal thing.

I've seen it 3 times in the last 5 years.

[Gormy Cuss]

167. It's all careless driving and in the case of cell phone use, illegal here too.

Far from chilling out, all of those behaviors are why drivers should be vigilant about observing all the cars around them as frequently as possible and keeping as much distance between cars as the conditions allow. It only takes one distracted driver to ruin your life.

[Roland99]

178. Oh ok. As long as those things are now normal (and, I assume, now safe, too?)

:eyes:

[jgraz]

181. Never said they were safe

Just suggesting that calling another DUer "dumb as a bag of hammers" may be a bit over-the-top.

[tyedyeto]

50. Hey! 75 is the limit here

And nothing is really recorded until you pass the 10 miles over which computes to 85.

So, WTF is the problem?

[Bigmack]

60. I just don't want to die with them...

I re-iterate...

anybody who drives 80 using a cell phone is dumber than a bag of hammers.

And let me add... anybody who defends that shit is twice as dumb.

[harkadog]

63. Just because you can't drive a vehicle

unless it is going 30 mph don't condemn the rest of us.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tyedyeto]

73. LMFAO

I live in a retirement community. Speed limit is 40, they drive 30. 30 mph limit... drive 25. And we're not even talking about golf cart speeds. They think if you drive on the freeway and the limit is 75...let's drive 60.

I've sat in the Motor Vehicle Dept and witnessed the prompting that the employees do for the elderly in this community. I am so much more of a defensive driver now than I ever have been in my lifetime (I'm 57). And it has nothing to do with cell phones.

[blueamy66]

111. me like...

:evilgrin:

[mdmc]

3. In NYS cops can use cell phone as part of their jobs..

I guess it is cool that ya only got one ticket. Sounds like ya caught a break all in all..

[Ken Burch]

4. The point is, even having a "hands-free" phone is a distraction

Your attention is divided between driving the car and the conversation you're having on the cel. Any time a person's focus is split while driving, the risk of an accident is increased because the divided focus increases your reaction time, which is important, because an accident is almost always caused by a wrong decision that is made in a fraction of a second.

Nobody likes getting a ticket, but I'm with the law on this one.

[HuckleB]

15. Yup.

[Lucian]

19. How is talking on a cell phone different than talking to a passenger in the car with you?

I guess I'm lost with what you're saying...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

27. The passenger sees the same traffic that the driver does...

And often recognizes the need to be silent, or to give a warning...

Much different from someone who is just a voice in your ear, and who cannot see what's happening.

[Lucian]

35. I know when I'm a passenger, I'm not really paying attention to the road.

:shrug:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

39. Well, maybe you don't...

But there is a general awareness (unless you're asleep) of what's going on.

For someone on the other end of the phone, there is zero awareness.

[Thickasabrick]

154. When I'm a passenger, I think I pay MORE attention. I think it's because

I'm not controlling the vehicle and it makes me more paranoid or something.

[Roland99]

180. Oh ok. So my daughter messing w/her iPod and not even looking at the road is what you mean?

[dysfunctional press]

81. when you talk on a phone, your mind is more distracted constructing a 'visual image' of the caller..

i'm not a psychologist, so i know i wouldn't be able to explain it correctly, but studies have been done that show that talking on a cellphone(even hands-free) is just as dangerous as driving intoxicated.

http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks
Utah Psychologists Warn Against Cell Phone Use While Driving

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/07/nhtsa-ny-times-cell-phone-driving-dangers-study.html
July 21, 2009
NHTSA withholds government study exposing cell phone driving dangers

[liberalhistorian]

55. Me too.

The other day I saw a woman on the road on a cell phone who was wondering all over the road while the rest of us were trying to stay the hell away from her. It was obvious she wasn't paying much attention to the road or the cars on it. I wanted to scream to HANG THE FUCK UP AND DRIVE THE FUCKING CAR BEFORE YOU KILL ONE OF US!

[SB37]

57. Couldn't agree more....

Drivers should be placed in a cone of silence while driving. Any passengers or children in the car should be forced into a soundproof back seat. Stereo, gps units and radar detectors should be removed - any users of such devices should be dealt with swiftly and harshly!

[Roland99]

179. Does that mean it should be illegal to talk to passengers in the car, too?

[timeforpeace]

5. So there is hope.

[walldude]

6. Looking for sympathy doing 80 while using a cell phone..

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Pay the fine and use your driving time to drive. Or buy a freaking bluetooth device...

[951-Riverside]

7. How many tickets has Maria Shriver recieved for breaking this law twice?

[1]

8. this is why i only text while driving. no where near your ear...

[MindPilot]

14. That's the whole point

The dangerous part, not looking out the window is not illegal.

[1]

26. the point was not lost on *me*, mp...

[Lucian]

21. I got a fine for that...

in MN, it's illegal to text while driving.

[toadzilla]

135. me too! illegal in CA

though all I did was read a text while driving, and that $20 ticket had $120 worth of fees attached to it.

[rsmith6621]

9. GOOD...

I'm glad you got cited......you broke the law so stop yerbitchen.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. 80mph and yakking? Oh, that's right - he should have known it was you.

Nobody else could do something like that safely. Only you.

[MindPilot]

18. anybody who can't talk and drive at the same time

probably shouldn't be doing either

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. The roads are full of them - menaces, every one of them

What the hell is so important that requires constant phone contact while driving?

Answer: NOTHING

[MindPilot]

25. Are you questioning my ability to operate a motor vehicle?

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. Maybe someone should.

The cop did.

[Regret My New Name]

70. I'm usually more concerned about people who text and drive...

Talking and driving, people can easily do that.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

152. I see this every single day

One guy was so caught up texting on his Blackberry, he didn't even bother to notice that he was about to hit me and 5 other cars..while he was coming onto the interstate! Then you have people who drive like 20 mph slower and hold up traffic, simply because they're talking on their cellphone at the same time...I have no patience for any of these fools! I leave my iPhone in my pocket or even turn it off when I drive. I can always reply when I'm out of my car and can concentrate on the message.

[11 Bravo]

11. Good, now stop doing that!

[napi21]

13. The problem is not only taking your eyes off the road, it's being distracted!

The same thing applies to a mom driving down the road and correcting a child in the back seat. My Ex DIL used to do this all the damn time! Especially when the kids were very small. The pacifier would fall, and the baby would cry, she'd find it and stick it back in the baby's mouth. Or people getting in an argument on their phone and their mental attention is on the argument not what's happening on the road around them!

I can't tell you how many times I've seen near misses by people watching the road but off in cell phone land! Get off the damn phone!

[HarveyDarkey]

16. sucks to be you, doesn't it?

If I'm called while driving I'll pick it up & say "call you back, I'm driving", then I hang up. Driving 80 & talking?

I rest my case.

[MindPilot]

24. No it doesn't

It was a $20 dollar phone call. So what? Lesson learned: I need to maintain a better lookout for cops.

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. Call the CHP and ask where they're bagging erratic drivers today

:rofl:

[SOS]

169. But...

If you cause an injury and records show you were on the cell phone at the time of the accident, the ensuing lawsuit will leave you:

[Shell Beau]

17. Cops have different rights in their cars than us civilians.

They must be in contact with the radio much of the day. Plus many of them take special driving courses. Not that that makes them good drivers, but we can't hold them to all of the same driving laws as us because their jobs have extenuating circumstances. That said, I have no problem with being ticketed while talking on the phone. We have enough distractions out there, and yes talking on the cell phone while driving is a distraction. Even more so than having a conversation with someone in the car. For some reason, it is just different. At least for most people I know. Texting while driving is a whole different issue. And 20 bucks is no biggie when it comes to traffic violations.

[Posteritatis]

20. You deserved it. (nt)

[xchrom]

23. good. nt

[MindPilot]

32. Never said I didn't deserve it...I got caught fair and square.

I just think it is a really stupid law.

[Shell Beau]

37. Why is it a stupid law? I bet many accidents would be prevented

if people weren't yapping on the phone while driving. That alone makes it a good law.

[MindPilot]

44. Because of the exemeptions.

Carrying on a conversation over an electronic device while driving is either dangerous or it isn't. Is it somehow less of a distraction to a school bus driver than to the guy in a BMW?

And as I pointed out up thread, the dangerous part--not looking out the window while dialing--is specifically exempted.

[Shell Beau]

62. IMO, their should be no exemptions. Caught talking on phone = ticket.

Period. Now I am guilty of doing it. I am not going to act like I am so awesome that I don't do it from time to time. But I don't just chit-chat. I try to only talk if I have to at a red light, but that isn't always the case. But if I got ticketed for it (which I wouldn't because it isn't the law here yet), then it would be like me speeding. I got caught, and I have to pay the ticket. Especially if you were going 80 and looking at the phone!!!!! What was the speed limit that you got a break from? And a big break I am guessing. Speeding fines are outrageous these days. 20 bucks is no biggie. You got lucky.

[Roon]

85. I got in an accident just after I finished a heated argument with a friend

on the cell. I wasn't on the phone, I just hanged up and was still spun when I got in my accident.

[MindPilot]

99. That's exactly why I rarely post on DU while driving.

[UTUSN]

29. I love you as a fellow DUer, but GOOD!1

There were humongous hissy fits when seat belts and lowered speed limits were mandated, too. And helmets for motorcyclists, although some of these latter two have been rescinded in places.

But the seat belts, anyway, sank into oblivious acceptance. For me even changing the radio can be hazardous----MY doing it, hazardous to OTHERS!1

But really I've had tons of people turning WIDELY and WILDLY right in front of me, with the danged cell to their danged heads, and with danged blissful SMILES on their danged pusses.


BTW, on bikers' helmet laws, I've seen a couple or more young dudes in comas because of their insistence on riding helmetless.

[liberal N proud]

31. The bumper sticker on my car says hang up and drive

If you were talking on the cell phone while driving and your car hit me, I would take your phone, set it on vibrate and give you a new suppository

Then I would start dialing your number.

[ZombieHorde]

82. Can we just pretend I hit you while I was talking on the phone? nt

[liberal N proud]

151. You like the vibrating suppository idea, Huh?

:rofl:

I guess I never thought about that prospect.

[EFerrari]

33. Well, I'm glad we don't need to throw a bail party for you, MindPilot.

[A HERETIC I AM]

34. Interesting. A NEXTEL loophole

(e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles:

I would think someone somewhere got that inserted because of the number of companies using the Nextel 2-way service.

[tigereye]

36. you would think it should apply to school bus drivers...

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. LOL

Should have told the cop you were a farmer on a crop emergency.

[Ozymanithrax]

41. Yes, it is dumb. It should be a moving violation and require confiscation of the phone...

Drinking and phoning don't mix.

[Stevenmarc]

42. Pay your $20 and STFU, and be glad you don't live in NYC where it can cost $180

[toadzilla]

137. a $20 ticket in CA usually has $120 in fees attatched to it by the time it comes in the mail

[scarletwoman]

43. Good. Why the fuck does ANYONE need to be talking on the damn phone all the time?

What could possibly be so fucking important to communicate that it can't wait until you're safely off the road?

By all means, use your cell phone if you're stranded somewhere with your car in a ditch -- but just yakking on the damn phone because you *can* is absolutely irresponsible and utterly stupid.

The fine should have been at least 10 times higher. Maybe then idiots who refuse to just focus on their driving will get a fucking clue.

[MindPilot]

47. Becuase I'm not on it "all the time".

And I'm not an idiot; I'm perfectly capable of having a conversation and safely operating a vehicle at the same time. It is not hard, but not everyone can.

When you have to spend half your life on the freeway it kind of becomes necessary skill.

[scarletwoman]

52. Why? Why is it necessary to have a phone conversation while you're driving?

What's so important that it can't wait? What's so hard about simply being fully engaged in the act of manuevering a 2 ton machine amidst a bunch of other 2 ton machines?

Is it so difficult to simply quietly abide in your own company?

[renate]

139. absolutely

I'll confess... I have in the past talked on my cell phone on quiet, boring streets (never on a highway that involved switching lanes, merging, etc). I don't do it any more... it's just easier to have a policy of No Cell Phones Ever than to make a decision to answer my phone on a deserted street and then be stuck in a conversation that lasts until I'm in serious traffic.

I like what you said about why is it so hard to wait, why not quietly abide in your own company (it's just temporary, for goodness' sake, right?), and most of all about being fully engaged in the act of maneuvering a 2-ton machine in the midst of other people doing the same thing (quite probably poorly, since they're talking on the phone).

Nobody--nobody without a personal driver, anyway--is so important that they can't wait five minutes to answer a call, or to at least pull over to the side of the road.

:applause:

[liberalhistorian]

56. Every person who ever caused an accident

yakking on their phone while driving has said the same damn thing. You're not so special that you're any exception.

[TheMadMonk]

74. Multiple studies have shown that driving while using a cell phone...

...is roughly equivalent to driving with a BAC (blood alcohol content) of 0.10%.

Funnily enough a lot of people with a BAC in that range believe they are capable of driving home. And most of the time they are correct in as much as they successfully do so, because nothing happens along the way that requires them to exercise extra-ordinary control of their vehicle. However, when a child, animal, other vehicle, or piece of debris unexpectedly places itself in such a driver's path their ability to successfully deal with the external situation is measurably reduced.

"Shoot honey, hunnerets and hunnerets of times, and nothin' happen' 'tall." Is not a contraceptive plan, and nor is it a fucking plan for driving.


I dispute your personal belief that you are capable of phoning while driving, but even allowing it, you yourself go on to say "It is not hard, but not everyone can." Guess what dickhead? If others CAN NOT then you fucking well MAY NOT. End of fucking story. The law does not contain special exemptions for (usually self declared) exceptional individuals capable of overcomming those limitations under which us mere mortals are forced to opperate.


If you are so gods bedamned important that you must be contactable (and in contact) 24/7 regardless of your location then you should be earning enough money to employ a full time driver. Either get one, or learn to opperate under the same restrictions as the rest of us.

Convenience is NOT necessity. Learn to recognise the difference.

[MindPilot]

88. Everybody operates at the lowest common demonator...

What a shitty way to live. Obviously works well for you, though.

[TheMadMonk]

129. No it's the safe way to live/operate in the real world.

Race drivers are not permitted to drive above the speed limit. Stunt pilots are not permitted to fly comercial airliners at the edge of their performance envelope.

There are innumerable ways in which the exceptional are required by law to operate within performance envelope of the average person, regargless of their individual capabilities.

Get back to me when you succeed in getting your local legislature to write in a special exemption for Mr (I am so bloody wonderful) MindPilot.

[salguine]

145. You should probably just bag this now. You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into the

Dickhead Hole.

[Downtown Hound]

45. So you're speeding and talking on the cell phone at the same time?

And now you're here bitching about how unfair the law was to you? Allow me to express my heartfelt sympathy with this little gesture:

:nopity:

[NYC_SKP]

46. 20 bucks you can get a blue tooth hands free gizmo.

Make it better on everybody.

[ecstatic]

49. I won't lecture... just remember that there's little to no room for error when going 80mph

I try to keep all distractions to a minimum when going that fast.

[lpbk2713]

51. I was rear-ended by a space cadet who was talking on his phone.

Some people think they can multi-task and then the truth smacks them right in the face.

[harkadog]

64. Do you think there were no rear end collisions before the cell phone?

People who let themselves get distracted and not watch traffic don't need the excuse of a cell phone to get them into an accident. They can be eating, playing with the cd/radio, watching things on the side of the street, etc.

[smalll]

67. Now there's more.

:shrug:

[Toasterlad]

53. As Well You Should.

Get yourself a Bluetooth, pull over to the side of the road, or get off your fucking phone. Otherwise, I hope they toss your ass in jail next time.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

83. Using a bluetooth headset is NOT the answer.

The distraction is in your paying attention to what you are hearing, not what you are seeing. The hands-free part does not make the phone call any less distracting.

And if you are being called constantly on the job, on your cellphone, while driving as part of your job duties, you should definitely be paid overtime. I have known people who refused to answer the phone while driving their car to and from work, as a safety measure, and the stupid bosses a)did NOT understand why they wouldn't drive and yak; and b) didn't understand why that should be paid as part of overtime.

[Toasterlad]

96. Well, I Certainly Disagree With You.

My car has Bluetooth, and, although I rarely use it since I hate talking on the phone, I find myself perfectly capable of driving and talking at the same time. I think the biggest problem with cellphone use in cars is that the physical act of holding the phone to your ear takes your attention off the road, since you tend to do it primarily when you're NOT on the road. Whereas talking on Bluetooth involves no extraneous movements whatsoever, and therefore, no physical distractions.

I'm sure there will be 300 studies complete shortly that will conclusively prove that Bluetooth technology is unsafe, and another 300 that will prove just as conclusively that IS safe. Perhaps we can meet back here in a year and continue the debate armed with these new statistics.

[pipi_k]

164. I'm on both sides with this

If talking with a bluetooth device is distracting, then there should be a law that makes it illegal for the driver to be talking with anyone...including passengers.

This includes couples having arguments, parents yelling at their unruly kids, etc.


Those situations can be every bit as dangerous as someone talking on a cell phone while driving.


Which leads me to the other side of it...a couple of weeks ago Mr Pip and I were on our way to an appointment when we came to an intersection where the light was red. We have "right turn on red" here (I don't know how many other states do as well...maybe all?) and the truck in front of us turned right. Mr Pip and I were engaged in a conversation (not arguing) and when the truck ahead of us turned right, Mr Pip went through the intersection against the red light, thinking it was green. He said he was halfway through when he realized his mistake, but too late to stop, so he kept going. Luckily nobody was coming the other way. Also, and ironically enough, there is a hospital at that intersection, which sees many accidents throughout the year. So I could at least joke that we wouldn't have had far to go for treatment.

But anyway...my point being that if phone conversations are that distracting, so are conversations right there in the car.

[blueamy66]

114. No bluetooth...

cause then he's be in violation of the CA law and look like a jackass.

[liberalhistorian]

54. Talking on the cell phone is just as distracting

as looking down to dial the number, text, etc. With the exception of a genuine emergency, there is NO REASON to be talking on a cell phone while driving, period. NONE. It's almost as dangerous as drunk driving and the list of accidents, deaths and injuries it has caused is long and harrowing. I'm sorry, but I have NO sympathy for you or anyone else who gets a ticket for it. It's well-deserved.

[pengillian101]

126. No need to be sorry. I so agree!

"Talking on the cell phone is just as distracting as looking down to dial the number, text, etc. With the exception of a genuine emergency, there is NO REASON to be talking on a cell phone while driving, period. NONE. It's almost as dangerous as drunk driving and the list of accidents, deaths and injuries it has caused is long and harrowing. I'm sorry, but I have NO sympathy for you or anyone else who gets a ticket for it. It's well-deserved."

[petronius]

61. I agree it's a stupid law - but the exemptions are the stupid part

Hands-free devices should also be prohibited...

[liberalhistorian]

168. I agree with that, too. It's not the type of phone, it's

the phone conversation itself while driving that's so distracting and dangerous. I think a lot of municipalities are finally beginning to recognize that.

[Matariki]

68. So, are you arguing that you should received a larger fine?

I'm not sure I understand the intent of your post.

[pnwmom]

75. I've gotten hit from behind twice by guys holding cell phones to their head.

Both times I was stopped at intersections. Don't know what their problem was.

Luckily, neither of them was doing 80!

[tyedyeto]

77. Just be glad you weren't playing some lousy jazz

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7192683

[Better Believe It]

78. Good. You're a danger to other motorists and yourself.

[Orrex]

79. I totally understand your irritation.

I felt the same way when I got cited for plowing into a dozen kids from the daycare center.

Why the hell were they just standing there on the sidewalk, anyway?

[varelse]

80. Driving under the influence of cell phone use has been compared (unfavorably) to drunk driving

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf

Summary: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of
cell-phone drivers with drivers who were legally intoxicated from ethanol. When
drivers were conversing on either a hand-held or hands-free cell-phone, their
reactions were sluggish and they attempted to compensate by driving slower and
increasing the following distance from the vehicle immediately in front of them. By
contrast, when drivers were legally intoxicated they exhibited a more aggressive
driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and
applying more force while braking. When controlling for driving difficulty and time
on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.

[MindPilot]

84. they must have found the worst of the worst to test.

Day in and day out I see dozens of people driving perfectly fine while talking on the phone.

[Orrex]

86. No you don't. Not really.

You see dozens of people driving with cellphones without being subjected to unexpected and/or sudden dangers that a fully-focused driver could avoid but which a drunk driver probably couldn't.

Or a cellphone user.

[varelse]

93. I'm sure a shocking number of equally impaired drivers manage

to make it back from their "power lunches" or home from the bar without getting into an accident - or even getting pulled over. Your point?

[Dreamer Tatum]

87. You didn't show the cop your Special Person Card?

Man, some people will just never get how totally awesomely cool you are, and they'll just never admit that you should choose the laws that apply to you.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

91. !

:*

[MindPilot]

92. It's not valid in LA.

Los Angeles county requires a Super Extra endorsement on the Special Person card. But I'm certain the CHP acknowledged my San Diego Special Person Card which is why he didn't cite me for speeding or the half-empty bottle of Jack on the front seat.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

95. "...the half-empty bottle of Jack on the front seat."

I suspected the OP was a parody of dubm. Good job.

[Forkboy]

89. You fucking maniac!

Now excuse me while I change Cds......

[MindPilot]

94. I had to make reservations at Olive Garden.

that smoking section next the breast feeding table fills up fast! What the hell else was I supposed to do?!

[Forkboy]

97. You should have told them the Olive Garden was all out of Baloney Alfredo.

:)

[MindPilot]

100. The cop did ask me why I was on the phone.

I just said "it was an important call." Maybe I should have gone into more detail.

[Forkboy]

102. Should have said, "I'm on the phone with your boss, rookie puke."

Ok, maybe this is why I've spent so many nights in jail.... :)

[MindPilot]

105. LOL

:toast:

[BuelahWitch]

90. Geez only 20 bucks?

With all the financial trouble and all the rich yahoos yakking on their cell phones it needs to be at least ten times more.

[MindPilot]

98. That's the whole point.

If this is really as dangerous as claimed--which I'm not convinced it is--then the law is completely ineffective. It amounts to an expensive phone call. And if a person on a cell phone is equivalent to a drunk driver why is it allowed for school bus drivers, tow truck drivers, ambulance drivers, etc...?

I'm not complaining about getting the ticket; I got caught fair and square. I'm saying the law as written is not about safety but is feel-good bullshit.

[Xicano]

101. Here's what I'd do.

I'd plead not guilty and if the cop shows up try this. When its your time to ask the cop questions ask the cop if they filed a "valid cause of action?" They will have to say yes. Then ask them how many elements are required in a valid cause of action. Answering this question will pretty much impeach their case because as the supreme courts have held in hundreds of cases, the elements required for a valid cause of action are: 1) A violation of an individual right. 2) Injury or damage. 3) Redress-ability by the court.

Hundreds of supreme court cases cite that in order for the court(s) to have "subject matter jurisdiction" there must be a "corpus delicti." Of course there must be a corpus delicti to file a valid cause of action. The elements of a corpus delicti are the same as listed above for a valid case of action. There must be a violation of an individual right AND damage or injury. Without a corpus delicti there cannot be a valid cause of action. Without a valid cause of action the prosecution doesn't have valid standing. Without standing the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction. Everything after that is irrelevant.

So after asking the cop to articulate evidence of a complaining party who's individual rights were violated and who sustained damage or injury, ask the judge (to get it on record) if corpus delicti is a necessary component. Of course the judge will have to answer yes. In fact in a California case ruling on standing it says that in EVERY case involving crime there MUST be a corpus delicti. Then move to dismiss the case on that the cop's case fails the necessary components to file a valid cause of action, it lacks the elements of a corpus delicti.

The cop will probably not even be able to answer how many elements are necessary to file a valid cause of action at which point move to strike all written and oral prior and current testimony due to lack of standing on behalf of the cop's failure to articulate filing a valid cause of action and incompetence.

There's a good chance the judge will jump in and defend the cop when you ask him how many elements are necessary to file a valid cause of action and say something like "leads to a legal conclusion." You'll have to defend your position that the conclusion is whether or not if the cop's case meets the required by law standards of standing. The judge may very well persist in which case I would have a few questions to respectfully ask the judge to clarify. Under the below law quoted the judge is obliged to answer.

"California Code of Judicial Ethics."

Disqualifacation

(3)(E)(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.

(Canon 3E(2) amended effective January 1, 2008.)

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

Ask: "Am I entitled to a fair trial?" Of course the answer will have to be yes, thus, locking the judge into this standard of law which of course we all expect.

Ask: "Can I get a fair trial if there's a conflict of interest?" The answer in this case will have to be no because its common knowledge that if there's a conflict of interest there's a built in interest/incentive to rule against you.

Ask: "Who do you represent here?" This question may very well aggravate the judge because they don't like being pointed out this.

Most, if not all, judges will not like answering this question and there's a chance they will refuse to answer. The reason is because this question will articulate a built in conflict of interest. The reason of course is because they are acting on behalf of the state who's also the pretended plaintiff in the case against you. Its no different than somebody suing you and acting as the judge at the same time.

If it goes in this direction just say to the judge that you're trying to question the cop to determine for the record if whether or not his case meets the legal standards of standing and are wondering if the court who represents the state of California which is also the same entity the plaintiff represents if whether or not its a conflict of interest for the court to disallow the defense to question the plaintiff on matters concerning standing.

Remember the legal standard of a corpus delicti is: Violation of an "individual right" -and- "damage or injury." Both of these elements must be met. That's the letter of the law. Anything else, with respect to the letter of the law, is a court acting ultra vires in a zealous prosecution.




Peace,
Xicano

[MindPilot]

104. Thanks for that! Good information. Like to try that if I ever get a RLC ticket

Another thing you can do is a "trial by written declaration". If the judge finds against you which they almost always will, you can then file an appeal in writing. This will require the citing officer to prepare a written response, but since a couple of months have past by this time the officer has forgotten the incident and probably won't take the time to write the response anyway. You will win by default.

[Xithras]

103. You want to hear something REALLY dumb?

I was pulled over two months ago for using a cellphone while driving. Cop was behind me, saw the phone in my hands, saw the screen light up, and pulled me over.

There was just one problem...I didn't even have my cellphone in my car. I was changing tracks on my iPod!

The cop told me that he was going to write me a ticket anyway, because the iPod was a distraction, and I just laughed and told him to go right ahead. I pointed out to him that the law was specific to cellphones, and that there was nothing illegal about using my iPod while driving. He called in to double check, verified that I was right, and then let me go with a VERY irritated "Just don't let me catch you doing that again". I really wanted to ask him why not, since it's a legal act, but bit my tongue and left.

So tell me this...how is answering a phone any more distracting than browsing my iPods playlist? Why is one legal, and one not?

[MindPilot]

108. And even if it were a phone, it's perfectly legal to look at it and dial

You only break the law when you are driving a passenger car or pickup truck and hold the phone up to your ear.

[omega minimo]

107. The really dumb part is you seem to think the law will parse out where you're attention was

rather than an officer will observe the fact that you are holding a cell phone to your ear. :crazy:

"The actual illegal act is holding the device to your ear, not taking your eyes off the road looking down to dial, not being distracted by the conversation, but simply having the thing up to your head."

[MindPilot]

113. The officer cannot do that which is exactly why the law is ambiguous

If I'm exhibiting erratic driving, then pull me over; I've obviously exceeded my competency level. Absent that there is not sufficient probable cause.

[omega minimo]

119. The law will not try to get inside your head. But an officer can observe a cell phone held up to it.

And there is a law against that. It's not ambiguous.

What's ambiguous is why this law does not apply to you?

[FourScore]

110. Excellent! I'm just sorry the fine is so low. n/t

[tkmorris]

112. Look pal, even if you CAN drive 80 while holding a phone to your head

The laws aren't specifically tailored just for you. Traffic laws are constructed so the worst driver who managed to pass the state's exam and get his/her license can manage to get from point 'A' to point 'B' without killing a family of four, provided they follow the laws that exist. You may not like it but they apply to you too. If we start making exceptions for marvelous drivers such as yourself, those who will be receiving a call from NASCAR any day now to PLEASE come drive for them, then we have to let everyone else do it too.

Sorry, you are being selfish as hell here and a tad arrogant to boot. Further I'd bet you aren't half the driver you think you are. Your whole OP smacks of Libertarian white noise to me.

[MindPilot]

115. Many traffic laws are constructed to generate revenue.

Others are implemented to make the public feel like something is really being done when it isn't.

What really needs to happen is better highway design, better signage, and better-trained drivers.

[tkmorris]

142. Yeah, the law is dumb given those excluded

But you are dumber for doing 80 with a cell phone plastered to your head. Sorry, dem's da facts.

[pengillian101]

122. +1

Edit to add quote.

"Sorry, you are being selfish as hell here and a tad arrogant to boot. Further I'd bet you aren't half the driver you think you are. Your whole OP smacks of Libertarian white noise to me."

[raccoon]

161. "There is none so blind as he who will not see." Referring to the OP. nt

[WeekendWarrior]

116. So You're the Douche Bag Who Drives Like a Douche Bag

because he's got a phone plastered to his ear.

Studies have clearly shown that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as drunk driving: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html I think they need to multiply that fine by 100.

ww

[MindPilot]

120. No YOU'RE a douche bag

You're probably the douche bag driving two miles under the limit. Douchebag.











Did I mention you're a DOUCHEBAG, douchebag?

[proteus_lives]

121. It's a teachable moment.

Don't pick-up the cell while behind the wheel.

[MindPilot]

123. Well, it's been real. I learned a lot tonight about the people on DU.

Especially from those of you who would wish violence on me, seize my property, fine me excessively, and even put me in jail.

Frankly I'm a little stunned at the level of vitriol I'm seeing here.

[salguine]

147. I'm just as stunned that you feel wronged when you're acting like a compete tool.

[Book Lover]

124. Support, support

Just wanted to give you a little love after reading a few of these comments. Clearly DU is populated by saints, other than you and me.

[nini]

125. get a fucking bluetooth and grow up

Those fines should be in the $100s.

You might as well be telling us you felt ok to drive after 3 or 4 drinks :eyes:

[pengillian101]

127. I think you might have missed a comma in the dollars.

;-)

[MindPilot]

128. It takes at least a six-pack before I can drive OK

Edited to add: I also smoke and toss my butts out the window...but only during fire season.

[salguine]

148. That's funny. Ever had a drunk driving death in your family?

[Electric Monk]

182. Are you now trying to imply that your OP was facetious?

If so, triple fail, and not funny either.

[defendandprotect]

131. Anytime I see someone with a cell phone up to their ear directly behind me . . .

in close traffic, I change lanes --

My son has the ear plug in but it always makes me nervous to talk to him when he's

driving -- and in fact, last time he said he was merging onto highway and had to go.

I was grateful!

[MilesColtrane]

132. Just be glad you didn't kill anybody.

[niyad]

133. so why don't you have a headset?

[Electric Monk]

136. If you fail at failing, does that become success?

[toadzilla]

138. $20 my ass, be prepared for a $140 ticket after they apply the fees

I got the same ticket for reading a text while driving.

[Raine]

140. YOU broke the law

and got caught ... :shrug:

[Incitatus]

141. Statistically, IIRC, that is just as bad as driving drunk,

I'm sure police officers have a little more training than the average driver. Using their radio while driving is a necessity. Your phone call while driving was most likely not. My car was totaled couple months ago by a person talking on their cell phone. I have a hard time finding any sympathy for you and you should consider a $20 fine to be getting off easy.

[salguine]

143. I'm glad you got busted. One of my best friends was killed by some dickhead who

was too busy yapping on the goddamn phone to drive properly. I think second offense should be a one-year revocation of driver's license.

Don't talk on the fucking phone while you're driving.

[uppityperson]

144. I wear hearing aids so here in WA I can talk/hold it to my ear as I drive, legally

Since I can't wear a bluetooth thingie, I am legally allowed to hold it to my ear and talk. However, I put it down when I see a cop coming since it would waste my time having them pull me over, even if I were doing it legally.

In CA you can do so when driving a school bus? That's pretty funny.

[old mark]

149. Good. I'm happy to hear someone is enforcing this. PA's no phone

while driving law enforcement started on December 1, and I hope to see a lot of people getting tickets for this incredibly stupid dangerous activity.

My only complaint is it should cost more - like $200, maybe.....maybe they will charge you more next time.


mark

[H2O Man]

150. Good.

[Crabby Appleton]

153. Good, although the fine isn't high enough

[calico1]

155. It is illegal here in CT..

The only problem is it is not enforced very well so I still see a lot of people do it.

And it is pretty easy to tell who is using a cell phone by the way they drive. They often are swerving or driving crooked on the road or they drive too slow because they are talking or go through stop signs or lights.

I have a cell phone and always have it with me but if I have to make a call while on the road I wait until I can pull over somewhere. If someone is calling me I do the same.

Unless it is a real emergency I guess I just don't understand the need for people to talk on a cell phone, or worse..text while driving, especially at high speeds. You are just asking for a disaster.

My only problem with anti cell phone while driving laws is that they are not enforced enough and that the fines aren't high enough. I also wish they would ticket the idiots who put makeup on, comb their hair, etc, while driving.

I am sure you are a nice enough person but while you may not consider it a big deal, I do because you could be the person behind me or in front of me who causes me to wind up in an accident.

Pay the fine, and next time please pull over..

[pipi_k]

165. I wish it were illegal here in Mass as well

I get really pissed off when I see people with cell phones up to their ear while they're driving. Mr Pip and I almost got hit by some young woman who came zipping into a parking lot while talking on her cell phone.

And good god...hands free devices are not that expensive, for Petes sake! I've got two of them.


Anyway, I can understand the frustration with the law not being enforced...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

156. Were you driving to the Olive Garden?

This has the makings of a classic.

[rucky]

157. I guess you feel the ticket wasn't enough punishment

since you chose to share this on DU.

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[saltpoint]

158. I'm sorry, but I have no problem with the cop writing you a ticket for

driving while talking on the cell phone.

It's dangerous. Your private correspondence is not more important than the public safety.

[raccoon]

159. I think it's a great law. I wish SC had that law. So many people in heavy traffic

driving one-handed.

IMO, it should be against the law to talk on the cell phone while driving even if you're using a hands-free, unless it's a DIRE emergency.

[calico1]

160. What I also stated in my post above but the

problem is that in states where it is against the law the issue is the enforcement. It is illegal here but you would never think that. On any given day you will see several people talking on their cell phones while driving. Passing a law is pretty useless unless their is good enforcement.

[Lurks Often]

162. Good!!

I'm glad you got caught and I am glad you got fined. I only wish it was $500 and a suspension of your license for 3 months.

Regardless of what you seem to think (and it seems that virtually all of the posters agree), you aren't special and the laws apply to you just as much as they apply to everybody else.








edited for grammar

[pipi_k]

166. IMO, the only exemptions should be

for people who have three arms.

Two on the wheel. One holding the phone.



A driver's first responsibility should always be maintaining control of his vehicle.

[zorahopkins]

173. Are You Sure You Were Going 80?

Driving 80 mph while talking on a cell phone.

That must have been some REALLY IMPORTANT CALL.

Most of the time, when I notice people who are talking on their cell phones on high-speed roads, they are doing one of two things:

1. They are in one of the fast lanes, but they are going about 15-20 miles slower than everyone else. I guess they think they are being safe by going very slow. In fact, they just back traffic up and create a huge hazard.

--OR--

2. They are slowly drifting into another lane. Or off the road. They usually manage to cathc themselves, but only because other drivers acknowledge the fact that a person on a cell phone MUST be so very important -- they have to be important, you see, because they cannot possibly wait to find a safe place (like off the interstate) to talk on their cell phones.

[Unvanguard]

175. I agree. There should be tougher fines and fewer exceptions. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

177. Good

[LanternWaste]

183. I imagine many people feel...

I imagine many people feel that a law they get busted breaking is quite unfair.

I also imagine many people are under the impression that they're smart enough and clever enough to be morally exempt from the consequences of laws they break and project their frustrations at either the LEO's or the laws being enforced.