Not normally in favor of legislation which limits our freedom, I find myself in an odd position today, delighted about a new California law banning the use of handheld cellphones when driving taking effect. While many Golden State drivers have learned to operate a motor vehicle while talking on their phones, all too many cannot. Their erratic driving increases traffic for their fellow drivers and threatens the safety of their fellow citizens.
It’s unfortunate that this law will prevent such drivers from using this skill they’ve acquired, allowing them to multi-task on the road. But, having lived in LA now for nearly nine years, I’ve seen the problem getting ever worse over the years, with other drivers, indeed, an increasing number of such drivers talking on their cell phones while slowing down traffic and risking other people’s lives.
And I’m not the only one.
Friends complain about drivers missing lights because they’re chatting away. Just a few weeks ago, I found myself following a pickup truck lumbering along a residential street at about 10-15 MPH. When I finally passed the guy, he was busy talking on his cellphone while barely paying attention to the road.
And there was the woman who couldn’t make a tight enough turn and nearly hit a pedestrian standing on a street corner. (He fortunately had the foresight to step back.) Or another woman who couldn’t control her car as she made a similar turn, nearly hitting a car whose driver (not on the phone as she) has the sense to swerve before she arrived in his lane, weaving all the while.
It would be nice if the state could just use existing laws on distracted driving to cite such individuals. Or perhaps offer a test requiring an individual to show proficiency in driving while on the phone before getting a permit to do so.
Sometimes, however, laws are necessary to promote safety. This, I believe, is one of those times.
I have a similar attitude toward Hate Crimes legislation. When friends learn of my opposition to such legislation, they often tell me such laws are necessary to ensure the safety of gay men and lesbians. In response, I ask for evidence showing that in the absence of such laws, violent crimes against gay people are neither investigated nor prosecuted. Should such evidence exist, I would certainly reconsider my position, provided of course there were evidence such laws promote the prosecution of such crimes in states where they’re already on the books.
That said, it has become evident to this California driver and many of his peers that all too many have shown a careless disregard for their fellow motorists and pedestrian by operating motor vehicles while talking on cell phones. This law may limit our freedom, but seems the only solution to a growing problem in the Golden State.
UPDATE: While driving to a meeting of Outfest Theater Managers on the Valley, I turned from Ventura onto a smaller street and found stuck in the right land behind a sports car going about 10 MPH (the Speed Limit was 35). When I was finally able to pass, I saw that the driver was talking on his cell phone. No longer just a discourteous driver, today he was a lawbreaker.
Right on, Dan. I sympathize 101%.
I wish they’d push through a cellphone law here in Texas. Whether you be in the city or country, you can see (what I term) “obliviots” just chatting away and not paying attention to their surroundings.
I even get fed up with those nonstop-talk-a-thons that people have when they’re shopping for groceries. I entered a store at the same time a young 20-something woman did and she was jawing away on her phone. By the time we were both in the checkout line 30 minutes later, she was STILL talking on the phone – to the same person! (I know this because she dropped “his” name over and over again.)
Is it me, or do these people need therapy or something? Just LET GO, people.
The only thing worse than incessant phone calls in public places are the guys who use their phones IN THE MEN’S ROOM. While they’re taking care of business.
(Shudder)
Regards,
Peter H.
I am wanting a Radio Shack device that you can aim at rude cell phone users and zap their phones with loud Lawrence Welk bubble machine music. Preferably, it would capture the phone for 24 hours.
Personally, I just think this is a plot by the cell phone companies to sell more hands-free devices:
http://tinyurl.com/5suaeb
Rick, LOL. I thought the same thing when driving home last night from the movies. I saw several drivers chattering away on their cell phones and wondered if they would be rushing off to buy hands-free devices today!
I assumed that owners of electronics stores (if they were good capitalists) would be sure to stock up!
I’m pleased to see this law take effect. It will be interesting to see if it makes any actual difference. I don’t think most drivers (me included) have the spare mental horsepower it takes to “multitask” while driving.
When I use my phone in the car, I constantly remind myself to pay attention to the road. For this reason, I keep my usage minimal. Most conversations can wait.
There is some argument as to whether the problem is holding the phone to your ear or the conversation itself that’s the problem. If it’s the latter then the hands-free law won’t make much difference.
Peter – the only thing worse than being in a men’s room where people are talking on the phone while they’re taking care of business is being on the other end of the line and hearing sounds that can only come from one place. Pfffffft – plop.
The seat belt law is also a very good law, along with the helmet for motorcycle drivers. Unfortunately too many unnecessary laws have come into effect in the interim.
I’m getting a new phone soon, so haven’t gotten the earpiece yet. So of course today my phone rings while I’m in the car. I was in a residential area, so I pulled to the side, parked and took the call. Right behind me comes one of those street cleaning trucks, it just went around me. But when I was done with the conversation I saw that I wasn’t allowed to park there at that time because of the street cleaner! Luckily he can’t give me a ticket.
Similar law took effect here in Washington today. Like you, I’m not keen on more laws restricting personal behavior. After all, cell phones dont cause accidents, people cause accidents. I would prefer that current reckless driving, and driving while distracted laws were enforced. If we start banning individual behaviors while driving, it wont be long before people are trying to ban eating and drinking (non-alcohol) while driving, and fiddling with the stereo — thats the way the “do-something” crowd operates. On the other hand, I dont talk on my cell phone while driving and have been tempted more than once to rear end the asshats driving 35 MPH in the fastlane because theyre too engrossed in conversations about Simon’s latest rant on American Idol.
Using a cell phone will driving isn’t clearly any more or less dangerous than putting on makeup, eating, or disciplining the kids while driving — and yet all of those things remain legal. (Just imagine the outcry from the fast food industry if we tried to outlaw eating while driving! Or the hysterical accusations of sexism if we tried to outlaw putting on makeup in the car.) This cell phone thing isn’t about safety, it is about resentment, about annoyance with slow drivers (not dangerous ones), and about (from the government’s standpoint) slowing the spread of citizens’ ability to easily and instantly record, report on, and even broadcast virtually anything that millions of cellphone users can witness. (There is a similar movement to outlaw “open” wifi signals. In other words, you won’t be able to use wifi without an I.D.)
BTW, if the argument goes that the government owns the roads and can therefore do whatever it wants with them, then it becomes a simple matter to justify a totalitarian state by merely arguing that the government (“society”) owns the people. Since by military draft (currently not enforced, but still legal), by jury enslavement, and by taxation, it is arguable that the government already owns a good portion of us, it might not be wise to make this “ownership” argument.
Oh, and I love the Lawrence Welk idea, although I dont think its possible, but they do make cell phone jammers! (Unfortunately I think theyre illegal to use)
My local gas station has a sign on the register that reads, “we will be happy to help you as soon as you have finished your phone conversation.” Naturally, the girl behind the counter was on the phone while she was helping me. :\
#9 – That’s another pet peeve of mine – women who put on makeup while driving. (I had a sister who did that. What made her stop was when she rear-ended a guy in front of her because she wasn’t paying attention. Poetic justice.)
#6 – Robert, thank you for making me spew coffee out of my mouth all over my monitor. I’ll send you the cleaning bill. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
It’s just a feel good law. One similar was passed in Santa Fe, NM a few years back. The day it went into effect there was a picture in the paper of a person driving his truck with a Big Gulp in one hand and a burger in the other. It was a pretty funny and scathing comment on the cell phone law. Just recently the city was discussing dropping the law because it was not really enforced because the police have real crime to prevent. I’ve had a cell phone in all of my cars since about 1988, have driven a lot of miles since then, and have never caused an accident in all that time. I feel good about that.
It does seem that Cali is the local edition of the USSR. Total control of the citizens and the society. If it is the locals choice, God bless em. But please don’t whine to the rest of us about $6 gasoline and higher than normal food prices. Yesterday I heard a leftist ask for all of us to be ordered to raise our thermostats by 5-10 degrees. We are too “hooked” on air conditioning supposedly. Lefitst really are wistful about the red painted tribe from South America. How great they are. No A/C, no cell phones, no BBQ grills or lawn mowers. Ahh the liberal utopia, California and the red painted tribe. Soon to be pretty similar, no?
I must say I approve of this law. If the cell phone talkers only endangered themselves while yakking and driving I’d say let’em take the risk. However this is a case of “your rights ending where my bumper begins.” It’s an appropriate use of law.
I don’t know what happened with it, but the CA legislature already considered a bill that would enable them to control citizens thermostats by remote or something along those lines. The central planners are WAY ahead of you.
The only relevance this laws has is to demonstrate the utter uselessness of the California Legislature. So they pass a law that might, if it’s even enforced, save me from getting run down by some ditzy cheerleader yakking on her Blackberry. Is this supposed to distract us from the fact that this is the same legislative body that has fought the federal government and citizens’ rights groups like the Minutemen tooth and nail to ensure that our Southern border remains a floodgate of criminals and freeloaders? Are we really supposed to believe that a single member of the California Senate or Assembly gives a flying fu*k about public safety?