not the one that hit my MR2 before I got my Z

 

uh oh. hahaha most do though? i think.

 

Agreed for the most part.
I think that there may be *some* trouble with banning texting while driving because that would also technically imply a ban on use of iPods, too.

Anyways, I’m glad that this cell phone ban while driving finally happened. I got very tired and irritated at the 90% of drivers who could not hold the phone to their ear and pay attention to how they were driving. I lost count of how many times I was almost hit or sideswiped due to someone holding their cell phone to their head chatting away.

 

and the worst part is they never even see you. they just keep puttin away. i notice it even more now that i ride my motorcycle daily. i hate you car drivers lol.

 

So from what I understand, a phone ticket does go on your record but it doesn't give you a point on the record. So since it goes on your record, does that mean insurance goes up? I'm confused

 

Technically, no. It doesn't quite count as a moving violation. But this might depend on which insurance company you use.

Here's a link to a PDF from the CHP about cell phone usage:
http://www.chp.ca.gov/pdf/media/cell_phone_faq.pdf

(check the website location and find it on the chp.ca.gov website if you doubt this link)

 

from that link I got this...

"Q: Will the conviction appear on my driving record?
A: Yes, but the violation point will not be added."

Now if its on your driving record, I though your insurance goes up..someone correct me if I'm wrong

 

Found another article that discusses the insurance issue:
http://www.redwoodtimes.com/local/ci_9551684

 

its probably like a seatbelt ticket.. just goes on your record to keep count of how many you have... so they can increase the ticket amount as you get more and more..

 

It's bad enough trying to stay out of the blind spots of these bohemith vehicles who aren't paying attention to their mirrors while changing lanes at will. I get really fried when they try to run me over and they're talking on their cells. This is a law that I can live with. (literally)

 

haha, you guys are making sound like people aren't going to use their cellphones, cuz of the law.. more people will just check for cops and still do the same shizzle. i got a nav with blutooth and it's so badass. I don't need to have the robocop look, talking like a crazy person from the outside.

 

i dont understand what all the commotion is about this hands free law... just go to any office depot and get yourself one of these nifty lil thangs:


problem solved!

 

i was looking for that picture all day! LOL thanks

 

ed you had me rollin on that one

 

Stop being cheap and buy a BT headset, then put it in your car and don't use it elsewhere - I've been doing that for well over a year.

Those of you who say that the law is stupid must really like being on the phone in the car. Either that or you have an extra arm and an extra 40% focusing ability on top of your regular human powers. Try avoiding the soccer mom in her Suburban with only one hand on the steering wheel instead of two, while simultaneously struggling to split your attention between your ever so important phone call and the "situation" at hand.

Texting is even more dangerous, since your eyes have to be glued to the phone screen instead of the road and traffic around you. It's sad that we even need a law to tell us such common-sense things.

It's funny to me that all the best drivers I've met (most of whom hone their skills on track days) refuse to use a cell phone while driving. Too much of their attention gets taken from watching out for their lives if they do. And it's not plain ol' regular driving that's difficult to pull off on the phone - it's the unexpected stuff, like someone driving into you because he/she is on the phone.

(Or maybe I'm just bitter that retards on phones keep trying to kill me. I swear, it's a conspiracy. )

 

there is a proven link between cellphones and accidents. Mainly Cell phones and WOMEN. I would say about 40% of the accidents Ive responded to had a driver using a non hands free cell phone..most likely a female

 

and speak some english also. I'm suprised I have not been called a WASIS.

 

You're WASIS!!!

 

 

I beg to differ. It effects EVERYONE's driving. While I will agree that the cell phone law is really a failed effort, it is an attempt to stop the real cause of a good chunk of accidents....distractions. A 1997 report in the New England Journal of Medicine compared the effects of using a cell phone while driving to the impact of driving legally drunk. While the study's methodology has been criticized, eyewitness reports confirm the problem.

More recently, NHTSA reported in 2001 that distraction from cell phone use could be a factor in 20% to 30% of crashes...that's almost 1/3 of all crashes! The National Safety Council published the results of the study that found cell phone conversations were as much of a distraction to drivers as dialing or answering. It was the mental focus on talking and listening that took drivers' focus off the road. In other words, a hands-free headset would not be the cure.

This supported several other studies on the subject of driver distraction. The NSC study gave drivers tasks to perform, then measured their response time to stopping at red lights and breaking. The study showed that drivers talking on a cell phone, whether it was a hand-held or hands-free phone, responded much slower to driving tasks such as braking and stopping. For example: the Texas Department of Public Safety has reported that cell-phone related accidents have increased 44 percent, an increase from 716 to 1,032 accidents.

Furthermore, the Univ. of Utah did a study on reactions of drivers based on a number of distractions. Regarding cell phones, the only thing a hands free unit did was give the driver the availablity of two hands instead of 1 to react in an emergency situation. Oddly enough, it did not help because the driver was so fixated on the phone call (distraction) that their reaction time was 3-4 times longer than when they gave their full attention to the task at hand; which was driving the car. Hence they confirmed that this driver was as bad as a driver who had a .08 BAC level

Then they went on to prove that the brain takes longer to process an auditory stimulus rather than a visual one. Now throw in an auditory distraction (phone call) coupled with a visual que to danger and I think you can guess the outcome. The auditory stimuli seems to take over the brain's activity and attention because of it being more difficult to process. Here is a great example: Have you ever been driving with the radio on and looking for a street address or a location you are not familiar with? Now, while looking intently of where you are going, have you ever found yourself turning the radio down, or even off, while looking? Of course you have...this is your brain's way of saying it is confused as to what you are asking of it.

Look, we have all seen the minivan or SUV going 55 on the freeway and we think there is something wrong ahead. We pull around them and its some dipshit on their phone oblivious to the fact that they are going at least 10 mph below the speed limit and they are really not paying attention to their driving. It is the brain's response to taking in information and processing it...and I bet that driver really didn't thinkt hey were doing anything wrong until they looked down at their speedometer.

So I really do disagree that it does not effect your driving.

Here are a couple to look at:
http://bicycleuniverse.info/cars/cellphones.html
http://www.car-accidents.com/cell_ph...accidents.html
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...tton=cellphone
http://www.accidentinfo.com/cell-phone-accident.htm