By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The joke is no points on this end not the fine. I know two people who got tickets, both now obey the law. The fine is a bit less of a joke and it's a good revenue maker for the state. Easy to spot, hard to refute.
Laws do change behavior....people will just find ways around it. I know if I were to get stopped for using a cell phone, the next time I would just make sure I was using my hands-free. At least that way my hands would be free to operate my GPS, eat, and shave (all activities which are apparently legal).
I was next to a woman yesterday who was doing her make-up in the vanity mirror on the sun visor. I matched her speed for a couple of minutes to see how long it would take her, but it was obviously longer than that, so I got bored and went past. Good thing her behavior was legal.....
Oh, and I'm sure it's higher than 2500 tickets by now. That total was just for the first 20 days or something, I forget, it was on the news a couple of weeks back now. Good state revenues, as you say...even more benefitted are the counties and cities, which take a bigger chunk of money in court and other "fees" than the basic fine the state imposes.
I understand the fine including fees is $76. It's now about that for an expired meter in San Francisco, and way more for things like parking in a red, in a zone due for street sweeping, or double parking. It's about to go to $6 each time I want to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, parking in the city is usually $10-20, it's about $6-8 worth of gas alone when I make that trip. And that's before the congestion charges they are about to impose to drive into the city.
Which is all to point out that a $76 fine is almost routine operating costs around here, and certainly not much of an incentive to change behavior.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I do see a lot more people texting but I can't text and chew gum at the same time.
If you have a Parrot bluetooth kit, a Motorola bluetooth kit, the Nokia CARK CK-7W, or an OEM system (SYNC, U-connect, Toyota or Honda Bluetooth), those are "hands free" systems. Many will support voice dialing so you don't even have to manually do that.
Hands free is not having that $3.99 wired headphone thing running to your ear and that isn't what the law says.
In our state that is pretty close to just what the law says. On a Q and A site from our DMV I got this information.
DRIVERS 18 AND OVER
Drivers 18 and over will be allowed to use a hands-free device to talk on their wireless telephone while driving. The following FAQs apply to those motorists 18 and over:
Q: Does the new “hands-free” law prohibit you from dialing a wireless telephone while driving or just talking on it?
A: The new law does not prohibit dialing, but drivers are strongly urged not to dial while driving.
Q: Will it be legal to use a Blue Tooth or other earpiece?
A: Yes, however you cannot have BOTH ears covered.
Q: Does the new hands-free law allow you to use the speaker phone function of your wireless telephone while driving?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the new “hands-free” law allow drivers 18 and over to text page while driving?
A: The law does not specifically prohibit that, but an officer can pull over and issue a citation to a driver of any age if, in the officer’s opinion, the driver was distracted and not operating the vehicle safely. Text paging while driving is unsafe at any speed and is strongly discouraged.
In our state that is pretty close to just what the law says. On a Q and A site from our DMV I got this information.
Q: Will it be legal to use a Blue Tooth or other earpiece?
A: Yes, however you cannot have BOTH ears covered.
I think we are agreeing. Having the stupid 3.99 earpiece in your ear is not hands free because of all the issues i mentioned in my previous post. A built in car-kit is hands free.
Some poorly thought out half-a__ed law doesn't change it. It just dumbs down the population.
I am finding that using the speakerphone feature with the phone clipped to the sun visor works pretty well, although I still occasionally take calls with the phone to my ear.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But if the fine is so low and it doesn't add any points to you driving record how serious do you think the legislators are taking cell phone use. If you just pay the ticket it is only 76 bucks with taxes and fees. The fine itself is only 20 bucks. A parking violation is more expensive.
But I was simply answering you statement about what the law says, not what it should have said hands free was.
Use of a hand-held cell phone will get one a ticket here and that includes texting. Will a few $175 tickets deter people. It would deter me from holding the phone to my ear. And deterring people will make the road a safer place. Now if people could use some common sense about when they choose to make these calls on hands-free, this legistlation wouldn't be necessary.
As people continue to eat and drink, smoke, smack kids, read, shave and apply makeup, play with GPS, play with laptops etc while driving...
Do DUI laws deter driving while intoxicated? Aren't alcohol related fatalaties up? While reducing casualities would be great, reducing car crashes and improving driving manners would also be good.
My state needs money badly, so for property tax relief I'm all for expensive fines to be levied to people doing stupid things.
I agree. However the menance posed to other drivers by smokers and eaters are different in proportion cell phone talkers. IMO. Sure you can cover your eyes and then drive, and then the majority can claim a law should be made specifiically for drivers who cover their eyes...but. Cell phone talkers and DUIers have one thing in common, they driver in similiar patterns (no lane discipiline etc), which has been born out by multiple studies.
The smokers will drive straight as an arrow, but like they are out for a Sunday drive in their Model T.
So fine the smokers and eaters for driving like a granny, and the cell phone talkers for driving like they are drunk. Seems reasonable to me.
Seriously, does anyone have any idea how many laws have been passed one week only to look silly the next? How many decisions get made only to learn later of the added problems that have been created? Gotta love E-85 right? Some folks a few years ago wanted to make E-85 the new standard. Hard to believe..
Actually, smokers already pay a hefty "fine" every time the buy a pack of cigarettes. Depending on the state they live in, a pack-a-day smoker can pay over $1k a year in cigarette tax.
-Frank
I bet the alcohol industry and it's supporters used that same argument 30 years ago.
-Frank
There is a difference between a "conversation" and using illicit drugs. I suppose using your rational we should make it illegal for any handicap drivers or anyone who is using cold meds from driving. Afterall, both issues can impair driving. Did you know that people with red hair get in more accidents? We should probably put them away too.
BTW, many cold medicines do have warnings not to operate heavy machinery while taking so if one were to get into an accident while taking those medications that person would be charged with DUI. Got any better examples?
And then there's the fires caused by discarded cigs...many out west each year.
The bottom line is that the law doesn't always move as swiftly as we would like, sometimes it needs prodding along. Right now, people are more outraged against driving and cell phones, which is a far more regular occurrence than eating or drinking, so it is getting attention from law makers. The great thing is that we live in a country where the lawmakers have to listen to their constituents. If you feel so strongly about banning eating and drinking while driving then start calling your state senator and representative. That doesn't mean that driving while talking on your cell phone should be legal.
In most cases, tobaccco taxes are just another revenue stream feeding into the general funds of local, state and the federal governments. Same as fines for talking on the cell phone.
-Frank
What is "seen" isn't always what is, especially when those doing the seeing are lawmakers who are never really held accountable for what they have wrought. People are "outraged"...yeah...or are they just finding something new to give their attention to distract from real problems?
This is a real problem.
Maybe I'm just an uncoordinated rube who can't walk and chew gum at the same time but... I am cognizant of the fact that my awareness of my surroundings is impaired when I'm talking on the phone. However, I can't say the same for when I'm drinking a soda or munching on a snack. In those instances, I'm fully aware of my surroundings and will take a swig or bite when I'm stopped at a traffic light. When the light turns green, I put down whatever I had in my hand and again concentrate on driving. When I'm talking on my cell phone I don't have that option.
It's hard to put down that giant iced latte when making an evasive maneuver, or to keep in your lane while eating ice cream
I would counter that the person with that giant iced latte is at least aware enough of their surroundings to know they have to make an evasive maneuver and hopefully the person drifting out of their lane while eating ice cream has checked their mirrors and therefore know that there’s no one in the next lane. You frequently can’t say the same for someone immersed in a cell phone conversation.
-Frank
Your are right on and will never get a direct answer to your question by certain folks, ie those who believe in personal freedom, or those who believe there are to many unenforceable laws. Maybe we do have to many laws on the books, but lets' get rid of the ones that are outdated, not the ones protecting the innocent.
You say attention has been distracted from "real problems". Are you upset that cell phone use has been targeted (and is not a "real problem") or that these other potentially distracting activities have not been targeted?
So you are upset with lawmakers who are never held accountable. You can hold them accountable with your vote and your voice, that is our responsibility. Who should be responsible for making laws? Or should there just be no laws and people should just sort things out for themselves.
You are probably a better driver than most, and the same can likely be said for other posters here. I don't think the Average Joe or Jody has great situational awareness, not from what I have seen of the snacking motorists here.
I have no problems with yappers being targeted, I don't talk and drive so it doesn't impact me. I would prefer a crackdown on distracted driving as a whole.
A vote and a voice? In a laughable two party system where any candidate will have to be approved by corporate and special interests? You must be kidding. It's always the same clown in a different suit no matter who wins.
Your last bit hinting at anarchy is a reactionary tangent and is paranoid.
Actually, I was substituting myself as an example of your typical motorist. Personally I rarely talk and drive because I'm not in denial about the negative effects on my situational awareness :P
-Frank
$5,000 fine for the first at-fault accident.
$10,000 fine for the second at fault accident (within 3 year period).
Lose your license for three years if you have a third at-fault accident.
The problem isn't drivers who use a cell phone while driving, it is with drivers who cause accidents period, and/or cause accidents while using a cell phone.
If a driver has proven over years and years of driving that they know how to drive at-fault-accident free, then let them do what they know how to do!
Stop applying rules that should only affect the worst drivers to the best drivers.
Today on my commute home I saw two idiots who weren't phone yappers. One was a woman engrossed in a conversation with her passenger, waving around a book, who veered in front of me (in the left lane as I was about to pass her) for no reason at all, as the road was deserted. The car had local plates, so I don't know what the excuse was. And the other was a guy in a Jeep who was eating, I think he was dipping fries, as he sat at a light. Lo and behold, the light changed and he dawdled and stumbled to get going...I had to breeze through on yellow to make it, thanks to him. All of this needs to be cracked down upon as much as phone yappers and smsers.
I choose not to yap on the phone simply because people here are bad drivers, and it's a war in peak traffic hours, and I would also rather listen to my car or some music than some dork who is calling me at a bad time. On a deserted street...I might cross that taboo line and go for it.
Hear me out and I am not trying to be flippant or argumentative here.
Imagine the worst cell phone driver you have seen - Loud obnoxious, drifting all over the lanes, no signals, is late to proceed when the light turns green, speeding up, slowing down, etc... We have all seen this person.
Now take away his cell phone. He still drifts all over, never signals, etc - and he simply finds other things to do while in the car, eat, shave, play with the GPS thingy, search his iPod, read the newspaper - and none of us are any safer for it.
So we passed a law that feels good (at least to some) yet does ZERO to improve safety. In facts we are less safe because we think we have solved the problem when in fact we have not.
Lets pass a law that lets the police use their experience and judgment to cite careless drives. Lets pass a law that levys a serious fine for those who cause accidents - say $10,000 for causing an injury and go up there.
Those are the kind of laws that would improve safety.
One side note - the local news media is now reporting on siting of drivers with dogs in their laps - I am sure the dog ban will be here soon :shades:
Clearly you have very strong feelings here - I do have one question. As cell phone use has increased dramatically over the last 20 years the accident and fatality rates have not. If cell phones are a real problem what decrease in the accident and fatality rate will we see with banning them.
Again not trying to be argumentative - just want to understand the bang for the buck factor here.
BTW, there is no cell phone ban, only using hand held devices with your hand and in some places texting and the ilk. In my opinion getting people to stop using hand held devices would improve the road a little, getting them to stop talking would improve the road a lot.
In the meantime some of us have to drive with 100% of our attention to the road to protect those to stupid to drive with 100% of their attention on the road.
There is no clear data. The fatality rate has zero correlation to cell phone usage and there are a lot of contributing factors including better cars, road designs, faster helicopters etc, that go into the number of fatalities.
I agree with the $10K fine or more for a SERIOUS injury causing accident to the at-fault driver. IN order to hurt someone badly in cars these days, you really have to be driving REALLY REALLY carelessly, negligently, and recklessly. If you cause a death to someone that was otherwise healthy, you should lose your vehicle and or 25,000, whichever is more.
Even for just property damage, I think they should have hefty fines. This would deter negligent driving and improve safety on our roads significantly.
Wreck my car with yours, now your car is mine!
Uh oh... now we're back to the argument about whether talking on a cell phone is any more distracting than the myriad of other non-driving related activities a driver can do.
I agree that hand-held cell phone bans are truly feel good laws that do little to improve safety. On the other hand, banning cell phones conversations while driving would reduce accidents (if it was enforceable) but such bans are rare since they are far more unpopular.
-Frank
Wow! $25k is small price to pay for taking a human life. I don't know about you but I think I'm worth a little more than that :confuse:
Regardless, fines only punish someone after the fact. I would much rather see a proactive approach that attempts to prevent accidents and fatalities by stopping dangerous behavior before more innocent people get injured or killed.
-Frank
Your heirs could bring on a lawsuit for your death.
However, I believe large fines would deter people driving stupidly. Criminal action for reckless driving and taking someone's life is one thing, but if they get financially hurt in addition to that, that is another thing. I think people would WAKE up and drive more attentively if they knew it would hit their pocketbook.
Is there any data showing an overall increase? I would expect that if Phones are the WMDs that GW was looking for there should be some sort of bump in accident, and fatality statistics?
Again - no disrespect intended - just interesting conversation
Find one post where I ever claimed cell phones are not dangerous. I never said that.
You miss the point.
If you want safer roads and is that is your only basis for making any decision, then let's get serious. Teenage drivers are the most dangerous out there. So, let's take away all of their DL's. Would you want your wife or children killed by a teenager? The next worst offenders are drivers over the age of 86. Let's take away their ability to drive. Would you want your wife or children killed by an old person.
How about soccer moms? They get distracted by their kids all the time. Let's make it illegal to drive with a child. Would you want to loose a loved-one due to a soccer mom? While we are at it, let's take radios out of cars. How about rear seats...how about all seats except the driver so they can't be distracted by conversation.
As to the cold meds I guess you would agree then that it would be OK to simply put a warning on a cell phone. After all, that is apparently fine for cold meds.
How about if I let you speak to Joe Yankowski. His daughter who had just been accepted to West Point was killed in a single car accident in PA 5 years ago. She slipped on ice and hit a tree on a light traveled road at night. They said she lived for 2 - 3 hours before he brain swelled too much. Her cell phone was left at home. What should we say to Joe?
Life is about balance....everything has pluses and minues.
Cell phones no doubt lead to accidents,,,,as do many, many other things. However, I don't think they should be singled out. There are consequences.
BTW, I have burried a daughter.
Cell phone usage is not WMD, it is the smoking gun. But the bullets are disappearing so statistics are nearly impossible to come by. If statistics were available you can bet they would be all over the news. The only statistics I've ever seen are from junior PHD statisticians on this board.