States with hands-free cell phone laws

[toaster]

California.

You'd never know it judging by all the motorists who cannot or will not use Bluetooth (or similar) devices and are breaking the current law.

Where is the enforcement? Obviously, since the new law has been rolled out people who were not ticketed must believe the law is not enforced or they can side step it by putting the phone on speaker and holding it away from their heads. Most just figure they won't get caught.

What other states are hands-free and what are your observations of this issue?

[Richard]

New York has a hands free law. I've seen it enforced, but very rarely. What I find interesting are the current reports regarding studies that conclude that driving while on a cell phone, WITH OR WITHOUT hands free devices, is the equivalent of driving intoxicated. I've certainly noticed drivers with blue tooth devices drifting around like drunks. Maybe that's just the way they drive anyway.

[rwsaunders]

CA, CT, NJ and WA, based on my travel experience. I have recently had rental cars which allowed me to patch my Bluetooth pda through the sound system. It beats using a headset or pulling over.

[Ken Robb]

I have never seen or heard of anyone being ticketed in San Diego for ignoring this law.
Of course it's a stupid law because a driver yakking via a hands-free phone is just as distracted as someone holding a phone to his ear so where's the benefit? I'm quite sure most of the Bluetoothers still don't sit in a proper position with both hands on the wheel so they can best control the car anyway. In fact what I see now is drivers w/headsets reading or writing while they talk since the headset has freed up one hand. :confused:

[victoryfactory]

Everyone in New York ignores this law regularly.
It turns jackass drivers into dangerous jackass drivers.

vf

[Der_Kruscher]

Pretty sure that they can't pull someone over simply for using a cellphone while driving but if someone is pulled over for a moving violation they can then be cited for using the phone. I think that the the first infraction is only $25 which really isn't much of a deterrent if you ask me.

California.

You'd never know it judging by all the motorists who cannot or will not use Bluetooth (or similar) devices and are breaking the current law.

Where is the enforcement? Obviously, since the new law has been rolled out people who were not ticketed must believe the law is not enforced or they can side step it by putting the phone on speaker and holding it away from their heads. Most just figure they won't get caught.

What other states are hands-free and what are your observations of this issue?

[Viper]

Phone free or die.

I just had to say that.

I mean if moral relativism applies to cyclists wearing helmets, then drivers should be able to phone home like ET without any laws or civic suggestions from the man.

I drive without my phone to my ear most of the time. I understand the possible implications of using it. What more needs to be said? :confused:

Everything is relative. Chaos. Bethlem Royal Hospital, bedlam! :D

Fun aside, I live in NY. Long Island was littered with car accidents while people were driving DWC (driving while calling) and the law is enforced. Drivers are pulled over when the policeman/policewoman sees them and it's a hefty fine. I believe this is a fantastic law; people, society are in large part, mouth-breathers who's ability to utilize common sense cannot be trusted.

[Blue Jays]

Some states have fines in the $150.00 range and police don't need a "primary" reason to pull-over a driver other than cellular use.
In this era of Bluetooth, it's not difficult to have a cordless headset.

[39cross]

mouth-breathers
Mouthbreathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouth_breathing) - they're trouble every time.

Mouth breathing in public is sometimes considered to be less socially acceptable or attractive than nose breathing, as mouth breathers can appear to have a somewhat "slack jawed" look, and mouth breathing can cause or exacerbate bad breath. Consequently, the term "mouth breather" may be used in a pejorative sense for someone lacking in hygiene or intelligence. Such usage is generally considered insensitive.

[jemoryl]

Here in NJ I've seen police talking into cell phones whilst driving!

[Lazy Bill]

Talking w/ or w/o bluetooth is much less a danger than
texting while driving, which is common among the most
inexperienced drivers.

[Volant]

We don't have a ban where I'm at, but, after seeing this post I took a small count while heading out for lunch to see how many people are on their phone while driving. I came up with about 8 out of 10!
That begs another question, since I use my cell-phone maybe once a day or once every other day (some days I just leave it at home). Who are these people talking to?!
I grew up with coin-operated rotary-dial phones and the axiom: "Only call if it's important or someone is dying."

[dvs cycles]

Pretty sure that they can't pull someone over simply for using a cellphone while driving but if someone is pulled over for a moving violation they can then be cited for using the phone. I think that the the first infraction is only $25 which really isn't much of a deterrent if you ask me.Wrong. Yes they can and have. CHP and news channels covered this when the law went into effect though the officer has to see you.
We all know cops are never around when YOU need them. ;)
If you see some one chatting away while on the phone and driving stupid call the CHP @ 800-835-5247. I have it on speed dial.. :beer:

[Der_Kruscher]

Good to know! Do you know what the fine is? It may not be $25 but I feel certain that it's pretty low...

Wrong. Yes they can and have. CHP and news channels covered this when the law went into effect though the officer has to see you.
We all know cops are never around when YOU need them. ;)
If you see some one chatting away while on the phone and driving stupid call the CHP @ 800-835-5247. I have it on speed dial.. :beer:

[Peter P.]

Pretty sure that they can't pull someone over simply for using a cellphone while driving but if someone is pulled over for a moving violation they can then be cited for using the phone.

Not so in CT. In CT, you CAN be pulled over solely for violating the "no handheld cellphone use" law. It need not be in conjunction with a moving violation.

As already mentioned, the studies already show that using a cellphone while driving is equivalent to driving drunk. Folks, the scientists call it "cognitive overload". You think you can multitask? The guys in the white coats have already concluded the human mind is NOTORIOUSLY POOR at multitasking. Strangely enough, I've had a woman tell me that women are better at multitasking than men. The studies also show that women are 4x as likely as men to use a cellphone while driving. Is there some correlation here?

The only reason the laws allow the hands-free devices is the cellphone industry lobbied heavily against any legislation that would impact their revenues. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

[dvs cycles]

Good to know! Do you know what the fine is? It may not be $25 but I feel certain that it's pretty low...It's $25 PLUS court cost so it gets way up near $100 for the first offence. 2nd time goes up more.
Really wish they had made it count for points so the law would have some teeth.
http://dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/

[bironi]

In Washington State it is a secondary offense, it may be cited if you are pulled over for another offense. It seems to be widely ignored. I remember when cell phone use by drivers first began in Seattle. I commuted into town daily via bike, and suddenly I had drivers trying to run me over with a big smiles plastered on their faces. I had somehow become invisible. Multitasking is dangerous.

[bigbill]

In Washington State it is a secondary offense, it may be cited if you are pulled over for another offense. It seems to be widely ignored. I remember when cell phone use by drivers first began in Seattle. I commuted into town daily via bike, and suddenly I had drivers trying to run me over with a big smiles plastered on their faces. I had somehow become invisible. Multitasking is dangerous.

On my Thursday commute, I was stopped at a long light and did an informal survey. Eighteen cars turned left in front of me, thirteen had drivers on the phone. In one car, the driver was texting and ended up doing a tire rub on the curb before he swerved back into the lane. We had a Deputy Sheriff at work on Friday and I asked about enforcement. He said that it will become a primary offense as early as next year. I remember when WA started mandatory seatbelt use. It started as a secondary offense and is now a primary.

[soulspinner]

Everyone in New York ignores this law regularly.
It turns jackass drivers into dangerous jackass drivers.

vf


Uhhh, yeahhhhh

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that anyone at all would be surprised that this law is almost totally ignored and totally unenforced by police. It's primarily a way for politicians to claim they are doing something about the problem because they voted for the law--yet they leave out any mechanism to give police the added resources to adequately enforce it. And I think the politicians know this. It's just a cynical PR ploy by politicians who know full well what they're doing. It's exactly like the law here in NY state that mandates all kins under 14 must wear bike helmets. I've never heard of anyone ever being ticked for that one or for the cell phone law.

To try and be fair about it, police have their hands full anyway trying to enforce all the laws on the books as best they can. There's simply no way they can enforce them all if a high enough percentage of the citizenry ignore them. Same thing applied with the old 55mph speed limit on the highways. There's no way one cop--or even a squad of 20 cops--can ticket everyone going by them on a busy highway that are driving 20mph over the speed limit. The same applies here. If a high enough percentage of citizens ignore the law--like they're doing here--then the cops aren't going to enforce it. They could write tickets all day and they'd still never put a dent in it. No wonder cops are stressed out all the time. The only real enforcement on this will come if local police chiefs are either convinced on their own or by local advocates embarrassing them publicly and they order their guys to enforce the law.

On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every time I've seen an officer driving along yacking on HIS cell phone--or doing any one of 50 other unsafe and/or illegal things that would get you or I pulled over in a second--I wouldn't have to be looking for a job right now. I could retire on the proceeds.

Sorry to sound so cynical about this, but stuff like this really cheeses me off. :butt: :rolleyes:

BBD

[fiamme red]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html?_r=1&8dpc

(snipped)

On Monday, the National Safety Council, the nonprofit advocacy group that has pushed for seat belt laws and drunken driving awareness, called for an all-out ban on using cellphones while driving.

“There is a huge misperception with the public that it’s O.K. if they are using a hands-free phone,” said Janet Froetscher, the council’s president and chief executive. “It’s the same challenge we had with seat belts and drunk driving — we’ve got to get people thinking the same way about cellphones.”

Laboratory experiments using simulators, real-world road studies and accident statistics all tell the same story: drivers talking on a cellphone are four times as likely to have an accident as drivers who are not. That’s the same level of risk posed by a driver who is legally drunk.

[DreaminJohn]

the people that hold the phone in front of their mouth like a walkie-talkie.

Holy Don't Get It, Batman!

[dvs cycles]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html?_r=1&8dpc

(snipped)

On Monday, the National Safety Council, the nonprofit advocacy group that has pushed for seat belt laws and drunken driving awareness, called for an all-out ban on using cellphones while driving.

“There is a huge misperception with the public that it’s O.K. if they are using a hands-free phone,” said Janet Froetscher, the council’s president and chief executive. “It’s the same challenge we had with seat belts and drunk driving — we’ve got to get people thinking the same way about cellphones.”

Laboratory experiments using simulators, real-world road studies and accident statistics all tell the same story: drivers talking on a cellphone are four times as likely to have an accident as drivers who are not. That’s the same level of risk posed by a driver who is legally drunk.
Face it. There are some people who shouldn't ever carry passengers either.
They can't talk with out looking at the other person. This happens on bicycles too by the way, usually female. ;)
While we ban cell phones entirely, NEVER HAPPEN or be adhered to, Lets bann food, cigarettes and drinks and children in the cab. :beer:
Guy in the left lane going slow this morning clogging up a 2 lane toll road.
Finally got enough room to sqeeze around him.TEXTING! :crap: