California Teen Cell Phone Use Ban While Driving

[kandrathe]

Personally, I think it is unfair to target only teens. And, it should be covered by "Reckless Driving" which would include eating, putting on makeup, digging in the backseat, messing around with the radio, and any other assorted activity that distracts the driver from paying attention to the road.

We should just outlaw stupidity and be done with this silliness.

[tehpmd]

Agreed. What sucks is im going to get pulled over for using a phone, even though Im old enough to avoid being ticketed because I look like a teenager.

><

[Nastie_Bowie]

We should just outlaw stupidity and be done with this silliness.

Stupidity should not be a capital offense. We should remove all warning labels and let nature take it's course.

[Munkay]

Personally, I think it is unfair to target only teens. And, it should be covered by "Reckless Driving" which would include eating, putting on makeup, digging in the backseat, messing around with the radio, and any other assorted activity that distracts the driver from paying attention to the road.

We should just outlaw stupidity and be done with this silliness.

Those poor teens, I for one am going to the nearest Circuit City and protesting for their rights with civil disobedience!

:whistling::P

Cheers,

Munk

[Ashock]

Stupidity should not be a capital offense. We should remove all warning labels and let nature take it's course.

I'd be all for it, except for the fact that stupidity while driving can affect more than just the person who is practicing it.

[Wyrm]

Personally, I think it is unfair to target only teens.

Agreed. While it's true that teens are more likely to cause accidents and all that stuff, it's also unfair to say that they're the only ones that can be distracted by the things, which is essentially what this ban is doing.

Just out of curiosity, can they still use hands free cell phones (i.e. blue tooth) or is it a complete ban on them all together? I know several states in the northeast (and probably other places too) have a ban on handheld phones and the like but still allow drivers to talk if they have hands free stuff.

[kandrathe]

Just out of curiosity, can they still use hands free cell phones (i.e. blue tooth) or is it a complete ban on them all together? I know several states in the northeast (and probably other places too) have a ban on handheld phones and the like but still allow drivers to talk if they have hands free stuff.

I believe I read it was all phone use.

[TheDragoon]

Personally, I think it is unfair to target only teens. And, it should be covered by "Reckless Driving" which would include eating, putting on makeup, digging in the backseat, messing around with the radio, and any other assorted activity that distracts the driver from paying attention to the road.

We should just outlaw stupidity and be done with this silliness.

I think that the reasoning behind it is sound; people who are younger are more easily distracted while also requiring more active attention than people who are older and/or experienced at driving. I have read about several studies that concluded just this, so this law seems to be targetting that sort of activity.

Of course, I'm from Washington which is banning cell phone use by ANYONE while driving (if not using a headset) over the course of the next year or so and I think that is a fabulous idea (despite the fact that I'll have to stop doing that). :)

[Archon_Wing]

Stupidity should not be a capital offense.

Indeed, otherwise we might be extinct. Although if I get run over by a cell phone user, I'm certain it's not a teen.-_-

[Archon_Wing]

I think that the reasoning behind it is sound; people who are younger are more easily distracted while also requiring more active attention than people who are older and/or experienced at driving. I have read about several studies that concluded just this, so this law seems to be targetting that sort of activity.

The reasoning is also unnecessary though. Why take chances?

[Munkay]

The reasoning is also unnecessary though. Why take chances?

Haven't you heard? Youngins need structure and discipline more than anyone else! :P

[Archon_Wing]

Haven't you heard? Youngins need structure and discipline more than anyone else! :P

Hehe, they do. ;D Of course, if adults are more responsible, then they should be able to put aside the cell phone too.;)

[eppie]

Personally, I think it is unfair to target only teens. And, it should be covered by "Reckless Driving" which would include eating, putting on makeup, digging in the backseat, messing around with the radio, and any other assorted activity that distracts the driver from paying attention to the road.

We should just outlaw stupidity and be done with this silliness.

No link kandrathe??

Anyway, I always give my opinion without reading your links, so no difference for me here. :D


We also get tougher laws for teens (well actually people untill the age of 25) regarding drunk driving. So 0 promille instead of 0.4 (or something like that) allowed.

I ahev no problems with this....everybody has been, is, or will be a teen...so it is not discrimination. I mean, your reasoning also means that it is unfair that 6 year olds are not allowed to drive.


By the way insurance companies also use this kind of distinctions. Younger people start by paying more car insurance, even people driving certain cars (VW golfs for example) will pay more insurance because these cars are more likely to be in an accident (a car loved by young people who like racing).

[kandrathe]

No link kandrathe??

Anyway, I always give my opinion without reading your links, so no difference for me here. :D
We also get tougher laws for teens (well actually people untill the age of 25) regarding drunk driving. So 0 promille instead of 0.4 (or something like that) allowed.

I have no problems with this....everybody has been, is, or will be a teen...so it is not discrimination. I mean, your reasoning also means that it is unfair that 6 year olds are not allowed to drive.
By the way insurance companies also use this kind of distinctions. Younger people start by paying more car insurance, even people driving certain cars (VW golfs for example) will pay more insurance because these cars are more likely to be in an accident (a car loved by young people who like racing).

Everyone will be over 60 some day, so do you think age discrimination against the elderly is bogus as well? Discrimination is a problem when a person cannot change that fact about them self. For example, preferring younger candidates over older ones for hiring. It is an actionable lawsuit where I live.

I'd say that with their faster reaction times, young people are better at multitasking. Although, they often lack experience in controlling a vehicle. The point is that we DO allow teens to drive, not 6 year olds. We give teens the same drivers license that we give adults. They have been through the training, and passed a road test to establish that they are competent.

Again, I find this law to be vote pandering. If it was made as a blanket provision across the whole population it would not be popular. For those that want a cell phone ban, this is a nod in the right direction implying the next step is near. Targeting those who cannot vote is a safer move. Since we are a self absorbed culture, no ones cares about what happens to the other person. I'd look at it as the camels nose into the tent. So why not gather up the coconuts to make a full ban? Again, I'd say its still covered by a reckless driving law.

[Maitre]

Again, I'd say its still covered by a reckless driving law.

I cut out much of your post to save space. First, let me say that I support a ban of hand held phones while driving (for all persons of driving age). I'm well aware of how driving with one hand impairs my ability to control a vehicle and a conversation splits my attention from driving. I do, however, beleieve that certain calls may be necessary, and so phone use should not be entirely banned.

With regard to defining reckless driving as inclusive of distracted driving: I am in favor of this as well, but I feel that reckless driving is a crimainal charge generally resulting from a collision with another party or some fixed object. Reckless driving may be a very good description of what teens, and others do, while driving and doing other things at the same time, but creating a specific provision banning cell phone use allows a traffic stop to occurr before a collision. I think this law is intended to function like seat-belt laws: give police an additional, lawful, cause to stop a driver who may not yet have crossed the line into recklessness.

[Munkay]

I think this law is intended to function like seat-belt laws: give police an additional, lawful, cause to stop a driver who may not yet have crossed the line into recklessness.

I thought seatbelt laws and cellphone use laws (in states where full bans are already in effect) are only secondary laws - you can't be stopped specifically for failure to comply, but if you are pulled over for other charges you face an additional penalty.

I may be wrong on this, but I know this much was true with cell phone laws when they were first introduced around here. It wouldn't surprise me if it changed since then, but I haven't heard any word of a change so far.

Cheers,

Munk

[Maitre]

I thought seatbelt laws and cellphone use laws (in states where full bans are already in effect) are only secondary laws - you can't be stopped specifically for failure to comply, but if you are pulled over for other charges you face an additional penalty.

I may be wrong on this, but I know this much was true with cell phone laws when they were first introduced around here. It wouldn't surprise me if it changed since then, but I haven't heard any word of a change so far.

Cheers,

Munk

I think it depends on the state. I'm pretty sure using a cell phone in NY without a handsfree device is a "stoppable" offense. At least I treated it that way while I was in NY last weekend.

[TheDragoon]

I thought seatbelt laws and cellphone use laws (in states where full bans are already in effect) are only secondary laws - you can't be stopped specifically for failure to comply, but if you are pulled over for other charges you face an additional penalty.

This is how Washington is implementing this law.

[kandrathe]

I cut out much of your post to save space. First, let me say that I support a ban of hand held phones while driving (for all persons of driving age). I'm well aware of how driving with one hand impairs my ability to control a vehicle and a conversation splits my attention from driving. I do, however, beleieve that certain calls may be necessary, and so phone use should not be entirely banned.

With regard to defining reckless driving as inclusive of distracted driving: I am in favor of this as well, but I feel that reckless driving is a crimainal charge generally resulting from a collision with another party or some fixed object. Reckless driving may be a very good description of what teens, and others do, while driving and doing other things at the same time, but creating a specific provision banning cell phone use allows a traffic stop to occurr before a collision. I think this law is intended to function like seat-belt laws: give police an additional, lawful, cause to stop a driver who may not yet have crossed the line into recklessness.

I just fear that soon you will know people with a "rap sheet" a mile long... Filled with such things as staring at a women for more than 10 seconds, using a cell phone while driving, and watering your lawn on the wrong day of the week.

When I was young I used to street race, and from 18 until 23 or so I racked up quite a few moving violations. I'm not proud of that time, but it was my way of acting out after my parents divorce. However, during that time I never caused an accident. The first time I caused an accident was last year in fact when I rear ended someone causing no damage to their tire, but wrecking my grill and hood. It took a long time for me to get past my bad driving record, so to see more and more rules piled onto the code makes me cringe. We are legislating common sense. If someone drives with one hand on a cell phone, is swerving from lane to lane, speeding up and slowing down and not paying attention to the road they deserve a ticket. There are plenty of laws in place already for which an officer could stop them including inattentive, careless or reckless driving. The last two are misdemeanors in my State which require a court visit.

[Munkay]

When I was young I used to street race, and from 18 until 23 or so I racked up quite a few moving violations. I'm not proud of that time, but it was my way of acting out after my parents divorce. However, during that time I never caused an accident. The first time I caused an accident was last year in fact when I rear ended someone causing no damage to their tire, but wrecking my grill and hood. It took a long time for me to get past my bad driving record, so to see more and more rules piled onto the code makes me cringe. We are legislating common sense. If someone drives with one hand on a cell phone, is swerving from lane to lane, speeding up and slowing down and not paying attention to the road they deserve a ticket. There are plenty of laws in place already for which an officer could stop them including inattentive, careless or reckless driving. The last two are misdemeanors in my State which require a court visit.

Nicole Richie drove down a high way the wrong way while high on drugs and intoxicated. Then she got caught driving on a suspended license again. She got sentenced to 4 days in jail. Last year a man from MA hit the headlines for being caught Driving Under the Influence for some unreal number of times (~20 I believe). Luckily he didn't kill anyone over the years.

I'm not sure you'll convince me that we're in a tyrannical age of outlawing common sense.

I'm not espousing a police state; I do believe there needs to be an eye to maintaining that fine line. And I know there's some nonsense laws out there that cause a real hassle from time to time (like giving bad cops an excuse to pull over people like Maitre on dubious charges). But I do have a very hard time saying 'don't ban cell phone usage for teenagers' when they are operating a 2 ton slab of metal at high speeds. Those are hard words to eat when someone you know gets hit.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. With that said, I should say I'm a fan of going very lightly on first time offenders, and going harsh on multiple repeat offenders for breaking laws that endanger other people. Everyone makes mistakes, and no amount of laws can stop harsh tragedies from happening. But targeting a group which has a high record of causing these kinds of incidents doesn't seem that terrible to me.